A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Lash wrote:

My last attempt:

Denying someone else their rights ...is...not....a....right.

Try to forget everything else.

Denying someone else their rights ...is...not....a....right.

Why did you ignore this?

What Christians want to think is their right.

When their right to an opinion becomes law that intrudes into the lives of other people

and forces them to live in a way that actively denies them equal rights,

there is no question about conflict.

One group--in this case Christians do not have the right to impose their opinions onto other people's lives.

Do they?

Just answer that single question, please. Do they?

They have the right to try and have their beliefs codified as law, don't they?
Yes--if the gays can create laws that also prevent the Christian fom marrying, I can live with it.

But of course Gays can't create such laws anymore than can Christians, but Gays certainly have the right, as do Christians, to try and have laws passed that codify their beliefs.

I don't think anyone would suggest that "Christians" have the right to storm into a same sex marriage ceremony and forcibly prevent it from being completed, but then I don't think any "Christians" have taken this approach.
That is great imagery. I think that's exactly what they've done.

Hyperbole. The legal means that have been taken to prevent same sex marriages have involved general elections at the state level. Where they have been successful, either there are a lot more Right Wing Christians than anyone suspects or the issue go beyond religious tenets. Either way the majority of the citizens spoke. If the Constitution needs to be invoked to protect the minority from the majority, it will be.

Are you suggesting that Christians don't have the same right as Gays to organize politically?
No. I'm suggesting they don't have the right to render a group legally inferior due to race, creed or sexual orientation.

The last time I checked, Christians don't constitute a fourth branch of the government. They haven't legally rendered anything. I think you have inaccurately focused on Christians as the source of a prevailing view with which you disagree. It is much more of a conservative position than a religious one.

Are you suggesting that any law that prevents one group from engaging in its desired practices is wrong?
No. Iamb suggesting preventing people from the same pursuit of happiness that everyone is enjoying is discrimination.

This is your best argument, but it's seriously flawed because it does not restrict the happiness, in any meaningful way, of same sex couples to refuse to equate their unions with those of men and women within the context of a healthy society. The laws that do not recognize same sex marriages do not outlaw homosexuality or same sex partnerships. It would seem that you do not believe homosexuality to be aberrant behavior but many do, and not without founding.

The fact that some opponents to same sex marriage argue in terms of morality, does not mean that all have formed their opposition at such a level, and some object to the notion that proponents would force upon them a major shift in societal norms.


Are you suggesting that it is not legitimate for society to restrict the behavior of a few for the benefit of the many?
The benefit of many....bigots? Yes. Really, Finn, how can restricting gay people fom marrying benefit anyone?

It is not so clear to many intelligent and well intentioned people that to oppose same sex marriages is bigotry. You may think otherwise, but that is obviously your right. The benefit in question is the benefit of a stable society built on proven institutions that do not promise 24/7 joy and happiness but provide a reliable and consistent foundation for generally positive co-existence.

Denying someone else their rights ...is...not....a....right.

I just love this kind of exchange:

FdA wrote:
They have the right to try and have their beliefs codified as law, don't they?

Lash wrote:
Yes--if the gays can create laws that also prevent the Christian fom marrying, I can live with it.

FdA responded with:
But of course Gays can't create such laws anymore than can Christians, but Gays certainly have the right, as do Christians, to try and have laws passed that codify their beliefs.

About as the most rediculous statement spoken with a straight face. I don't wonder FdA would ever guess why.

Lash wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Lash wrote:

My last attempt:

Denying someone else their rights ...is...not....a....right.

Try to forget everything else.

Denying someone else their rights ...is...not....a....right.

Why did you ignore this?

What Christians want to think is their right.

When their right to an opinion becomes law that intrudes into the lives of other people

and forces them to live in a way that actively denies them equal rights,

there is no question about conflict.

One group--in this case Christians do not have the right to impose their opinions onto other people's lives.

Do they?

Just answer that single question, please. Do they?

They have the right to try and have their beliefs codified as law, don't they?
Yes--if the gays can create laws that also prevent the Christian fom marrying, I can live with it.

But of course Gays can't create such laws anymore than can Christians, but Gays certainly have the right, as do Christians, to try and have laws passed that codify their beliefs.
Maybe the Christians won't like something you're doing next... Don't you think on those terms? Let them screw with the gays--but what about when they come after you and your lifestyle?I don't think anyone would suggest that "Christians" have the right to storm into a same sex marriage ceremony and forcibly prevent it from being completed, but then I don't think any "Christians" have taken this approach.
That is great imagery. I think that's exactly what they've done.

Hyperbole.
Hey, it was your image.
Are you suggesting that Christians don't have the same right as Gays to organize politically?
No. I'm suggesting they don't have the right to render a group legally inferior due to race, creed or sexual orientation.

The last time I checked, Christians don't constitute a fourth branch of the government. They haven't legally rendered anything. I think you have inaccurately focused on Christians as the source of a prevailing view with which you disagree. It is much more of a conservative position than a religious one.
Interesting direction. Q- If traditional "morality" isn't leading the crusade against gay marriage/rights, what form of conservatism is? Restated, how many "conservative" voters, who vote against gay marriage won't cite "God said" or the Bible?
Are you suggesting that any law that prevents one group from engaging in its desired practices is wrong?
No. I am suggesting preventing people from the same pursuit of happiness that everyone is enjoying is discrimination.

This is your best argument, but it's seriously flawed because it does not restrict the happiness, in any meaningful way, of same sex couples to refuse to equate their unions with those of men and women within the context of a healthy society.
Which gay people told you this?

The laws that do not recognize same sex marriages do not outlaw homosexuality or same sex partnerships. It would seem that you do not believe homosexuality to be aberrant behavior but many do, and not without founding.
Those many are called Christians.
The fact that some opponents to same sex marriage argue in terms of morality, does not mean that all have formed their opposition at such a level, and some object to the notion that proponents would force upon them a major shift in societal norms.
Some? I don't believe this is true. If you can show any evidence of these non-Christian gay-haters, I'd be interested to see it. I'd also probably think they were lying. I'd have to believe their motive. Sounds flimsy. And again--this wayward path leaves the point of my comments. I don't care about the whys--it's a losing battle based on opinion. I care about the results--a failure of equality in a country that should know better.
Are you suggesting that it is not legitimate for society to restrict the behavior of a few for the benefit of the many?
The benefit of many....bigots? Yes. Really, Finn, how can restricting gay people fom marrying benefit anyone?

It is not so clear to many intelligent and well intentioned people that to oppose same sex marriages is bigotry. You may think otherwise, but that is obviously your right. The benefit in question is the benefit of a stable society built on proven institutions that do not promise 24/7 joy and happiness but provide a reliable and consistent foundation for generally positive co-existence.

There are about thirty five million black Americans who would beg to differ, I'm sure. The women in this country who were legally property until, historically, very recently may disagree, as well. When they finally achieved legal equality, the world didn't come to an end. Why not stop the oppression of gay people?

Lash wrote:

Denying someone else their rights ...is...not....a....right.

This is simply too simple, Lash.
Then why don't you understand it?
I have a right to swing my fist. That right ends where your face begins.
Exactly!! So, we're done here!
I do not blame you one iota for choosing the Gays side; but I find it preposterous that you deny the Christians even have one.
They have a side--but their side seeks to deny other people equal rights, so they are wrong (and mean).
I think you'd find it easier to see the logic; if you could produce your own analogy where you have an emotional attachment to neither side.
I didn't reach my opinion based on emotional attachment. It's quite basic human rights to me. It's logical. All adult human Americans have a right to be treated equally. YOU must have an emotional attachment that prevents you from seeing how crazy your arguments are.
How about, let's see here: The local chapter of United Morons for Equality wants to distribute Mensa Membership Cards to every Moron that wants one. They don't think it's fair that only people whose academic prowess is consistent with historical Membership are allowed. Mensa Membership looks good on an application, and why should Morons not be allowed to share in this benefit?

The Mensa people take offense to this seemingly ridiculous idea, as Morons simply don't fit the historic definition of Mensa Members. Further; they believe inclusion of Morons in Mensa would pollute the meaning of the Membership and lower its overall prestige. Would it not?

Enter the PC Police. Damn those elitist Mensa Members. How dare they deny Morons the right to enjoy the same benefits as people whose lives measure up to historical standards. This is a progressive time and history means nothing. It is only bigotry against Morons that make those elitist pricks want to deny Morons the same rights, privileges and prestige enjoyed by Membership. Allowing Morons Membership wouldn't infringe on Mensa Members in any way shape or form. It's not like the Morons are trying to take away the Membership Cards from traditional Mensa Members, is it? It is simply unfair to deny Morons the right to the card because they don't fit the historical standard. It's pure discrimination and bigotry against people just for being different, that's what it is. Is it a Moron's fault that he was born with a different set of attributes? Is he less of a human being for it? Do we really want to live in a society that punishes the Moron simply for being born different? It is high time we do away with such bigotry, because there is simply no good reason to allow it.

Now: Is it understandable that Morons would like to carry Mensa Membership Cards? Of course.

Is it understandable that traditional Mensa Members find this idea preposterous? Of course.

And here's the kicker: Would traditional Mensa Members lose anything of value by the admission of Morons? Of course.

Hence; the Morons desire for inclusion would indeed infringe upon the rights of the traditional Mensa Members.

Disclaimer: In the above example; I in no way intended to paint Gays as Morons, nor Christians as Geniuses (I would, if fact, be hard pressed to define which would be more ridiculous). I do not in any way believe either group has any correlation whatsoever to the other. Morons were chosen for this example simply because they are different from traditional Mensa Members, through no fault of their own, would benefit from Membership and their inclusion could reasonably be shown to alter the meaning of Membership.

Caution: Anyone incapable of understanding the point without accusing me of calling Gays Morons is, in fact, a Moron.

Bill-- They dirty the communal pool, huh. That makes me sad.

There is no point and I'm sad because of you. If religious institutions are so flimsy that they require such meanness to keep them going, we should abolish them.

Denying that the meaning of the institution itself (Marriage) would be altered to the dismay of millions who seek to protect the prestige of their religious institutions... is just plain denial.

I don't deny their goal, I reject it. There's a difference. You have to weigh what has more merit or value. Do you buy your kid a toy or a meal...? The Christians are getting their special toy when people are starving. "Dismay re prestige"... or human equality. <hmmm> The call is very easy for me. I don't deny pricks want to keep gays down by not allowing them to marry. I just reject them.

Thanks, I will.