The fact that this is so hard for most people to even attempt to answer should be telling.
It is "hard to answer" because it's a complex question. You want a pithy simple soundbite answer because that's the easiest for you to live with -- just like "Marriage is for kids!" is easier to compartmentalize than the complex realities of marriage law over the years.
And yet, conservatives have no problems providing those complex explanations and arguments for their positions, while it seems to almost be a staple of liberal thought to avoid this at all costs in favor of the emotional response approach.
You're free to disagree with them, but the libertarian who says that he believes the infringement of liberty is not justified in this case is a completely valid and logical argument. And when asked, he'll talk at length about how liberty is affected, how discrimination is an inherent part of liberty, and how there's no evidence that this specific discrimination is sufficiently harmful to the population in question to require adding it to the protected list. And if pressed, he might contrast this to other groups who could demonstrably be shown to be harmed as a result of similar discrimination.
Can you show me statistics that **** people as a whole suffer economically because we don't have laws prohibiting employers from discriminating against them on the basis of their homosexuality? Not "one person is harmed", but "the group as a whole is statistically worse off". Because we can show these kinds of statistics historically when we look at gender discrimination, or racial discrimination, or religious discrimination. Add this to a conservatives inherent opposition to adding more laws without need, and the position on this issue makes a **** of a lot of sense.
One could suggest that you, for example, look through the testimony and hearings about previous discrimination laws and those surrounding ENDA and read for yourself what criteria are being used but since you still cling to "Marriage is for kids!", I don't have any hopes that you'd put that sort of effort into this topic either.
I have. Have you? I've been trying to get you guys to do this all thread long. So many people have responded with a knee jerk assumption that discrimination against homosexuals is no different than discrimination against blacks, or women, but I'm trying to get them to actually assess if this is really true. I think they are completely different. Outside of just "being discrimination" (which I've already argued and I hope we all agree is not wrong all by itself), all we have is an arbitrary decision to include this group in that category which requires protection. I don't believe that there's actual good demonstrable data to support that assumption though.
Do you think there is? It's what I'm trying to get you to look at. Don't assume it is because that's what you've been told. And don't assume it is because you've been told anyone who doesn't think so is "bad". Actually look at the data. Find me data that shows that this is such a great problem in our society and that homosexuals suffer a massive statistical inability to obtain gainful employment that this law must be enacted. It's not there, is it? This isn't about addressing a problem. It's about creating a wedge and coming up with yet another bogus issue that can be used to paint the rational people in our society (that's conservatives btw) as "bad" by encouraging people to act on emotion rather than reason.
And *that's* why I don't vote Democrat.