WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Quote:

I believe in liberty. You can have or follow any beliefs you want. Just don't try to force them on my and we will get along just fine. Unfortunately the religious right is unwilling to live this way.

ebrown,
What if I believe that having sex with 10 year old girls is ok and acceptable?
Are you going to allow me to act on my beliefs?
As long as I dont force those beliefs on you,its ok for me to have sex with children,is that what you are saying?

If conservatives would just leave me alone, I would be happy to leave them alone.

We believe all people should be as free as possible to determine their own destinies and activities within the limits required by a respect for the equal rights of others. This freedom should be actual and practical, unhindered by unnecessary legal prohibitions or material constraints.

All persons must be considered as equals. No-one has the right to coerce or expect obedience from others except where necessary to protect the equal rights of others.

We envisage a future free of oppression, of people living in community and in control of their own lives. We see a society governing itself though workplace and community councils, making decisions at the lowest possible level and cooperating and organising together.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Gay marriage has never (until a few recent attempts) been endorsed by any legal system or government in the history of the word. It's you who wants to change the existing practice, not us.

So? Unless you can provide a compelling reason to not change the practice, there is no reason to make it illegal.

There are a lot of things that are different than they used to be, Brandon. You'd better start getting used to it, or the next 30-40 years are going to be pretty rough on you.

Cycloptichorn

I'd rather stick to the subject, thanks. My point was that we are not trying to revoke some long standing right, but rather do not wish to grant a right which has never existed anywhere on Earth until the past few years.

It doesn't matter if you don't wish to grant the right. All that matters is that a substantive reason cannot be given why you don't wish to grant this right. You can't reveal the underlying principles of how it causes harm to other members of society to grant this right. You can't identify compelling reasons that a court should deny this right. All you can do is say 'It's never been done this way, so we won't do it either.' Not good enough.

Cycloptichorn

In fact I can, but refuse to get into it here since it's irrelevant to my point.

I wouldn't be surprised if I had already done so in some other thread.

My point was to clarify the fact that the "evil conservatives" are merely trying to maintain a status quo which has, as far as I know, existed in every human society in history.

That was my point, and I'm right.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Gay marriage has never (until a few recent attempts) been endorsed by any legal system or government in the history of the word. It's you who wants to change the existing practice, not us.

So? Unless you can provide a compelling reason to not change the practice, there is no reason to make it illegal.

There are a lot of things that are different than they used to be, Brandon. You'd better start getting used to it, or the next 30-40 years are going to be pretty rough on you.

Cycloptichorn

I'd rather stick to the subject, thanks. My point was that we are not trying to revoke some long standing right, but rather do not wish to grant a right which has never existed anywhere on Earth until the past few years.

It doesn't matter if you don't wish to grant the right. All that matters is that a substantive reason cannot be given why you don't wish to grant this right. You can't reveal the underlying principles of how it causes harm to other members of society to grant this right. You can't identify compelling reasons that a court should deny this right. All you can do is say 'It's never been done this way, so we won't do it either.' Not good enough.

Cycloptichorn

In fact I can, but refuse to get into it here since it's irrelevant to my point.

Hardly. It is, in fact, relevant to the point, in that it shows the error of your thinking.

Quote:

I wouldn't be surprised if I had already done so in some other thread.

I would be surprised. Neither you, nor anyone else, has ever been able to answer those questions. Never in the whole time I've been on A2K. I challenge you to do so, though I know that you won't.

Quote:

My point was to clarify the fact that the "evil conservatives" are merely trying to maintain a status quo which has, as far as I know, existed in every human society in history.

Every human society is a little different. Trying to hold on to 'tradition' at the sake of human rights is ridiculous. You can't show any other reason, so, as predicted, you fall back on 'it's never been done before, so we won't do it either' without any logic to support it. Not good enough.

Quote:

That was my point, and I'm right.

How can you, someone who is so into debate, drop a whole set of logical arguments made by the opponent, and declare yourself 'right?' You aren't right. It is wrong to hold back change based upon tradition.

Cycloptichorn

By the way, 30 seconds of searching reveals some posts in which I discussed the underlying issues:

I don't care what the 'intention' of your post was; you are making an argument which you cannot support with logic whatsoever, and cannot reconcile it with our system of laws and governance. So, my comments were directly to the point: conservatives are wrong for wishing to deny Gays the right to marry, and they wish to deny them this out of fear, homophobia, and not any good logic. 'Tradition' isn't a reason to deny people rights. It is an excuse used to hide your fear of fags marrying.

So, you weren't right at all. If you were, you would be able to show specific ways that gay marriage would harm society, but you cannot, so...

Cycloptichorn

I was only arguing one single point, that conservatives are not trying to revoke longstanding rights, but only trying to preserve a status quo that has existed everywhere and everywhen until the past few years. Don't try to refute this clear assertion by disproving some other one. This was my point and I was correct.

I think nobody will be elected who runs on a platform that denies rights to anybody unless such rights are denied everybody using the same criteria.

Conversely I think candidates will have a tough time being elected if they run on a platform that gives any group a right or rights that nobody else has, again if the voters know that is his/her intention.

The only fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory policies for any society will be reflected in laws that apply equally to all regardless of sociopolitical status, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. etc. etc.

And there are some laws, policies, principles, etc. that aren't broken and do not need fixing. I think a wise candidate will be able to identify these and will be able to articulate why they are worth preserving.

And there are some laws, policies, principles, etc. that aren't broken and do not need fixing.

Quote:

I was only arguing one single point, that conservatives are not trying to revoke longstanding rights, but only trying to preserve a status quo that has existed everywhere and everywhen until the past few years. Don't try to refute this clear assertion by disproving some other one. This was my point and I was correct.

Oh, I understand your point, but my point is that Conservatives are wrong for doing that. They are wrong for trying to preserve the 'status quo' at the expense of people's rights and happiness. 'Preserving the status quo' is not a good reason for holding a belief or behavior, especially when the status quo is not a fair situation to a significant portion of your society.

Of course, your latent homophobia has something to do with it as well.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

And there are some laws, policies, principles, etc. that aren't broken and do not need fixing.

You only think they don't need fixing, because you aren't the one whose rights are being denied, and you don't care about those whose rights are being denied.

Cycloptichorn

I wasn't trying to justify retaining the present system on the grounds that it is the status quo, I was merely making the point that it is the status quo. Now, I've pointed you to some past posts of mine, which you said you doubted the existence of, in which I did discuss the underlying issue.

You discussed your underlying homophobia, but didn't provide any good reason to deny gay rights, from a legal or civil rights point of view.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You discussed your underlying homophobia, but didn't provide any good reason to deny gay rights, from a legal or civil rights point of view.

What rights? So far, more state supreme courts than not concluded that legislatures don't violate gay rights when they restrict marriage to couples of opposite sex. As for the federal supreme court, it explicitly declared the question undecided in Lawrence v. Texas. Thus, while I disagree with Brandon that noone should have the right to marry someone of the same gender, I think he has good reasons to believe gays don't have this right as a matter of constitutional law.

Haha, yet.

I believe that gays do have the right to marry.

There is no inherent advantage to a moral structure that is built upon logic and sound arguments, over one that is not?