Yeah, but queers have been around just as long. It's taken thousands of years to be tolerated, sanctioned probably won't take as long.
|
It's not changing anything. The marriage of straight people doesn't change one bit when gay people exercise their rights. Gay people aren't trying to force churches to perform gay marriages. They just want access to the same government services that any other citizen has access to.
|
Quote:
Whatever you say douchebag. I didn't say people should be thrown out for disagreeing with me. I said they should be thrown out for violating the rights of other citizens. It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing on a subject. If that's all that was happening, there wouldn't be a problem. It's not the words of the right-wing dickheads like you that bother me. It's the actions. They are taking actions to violate the civil rights of one set of citizens simply because they don't like them. This makes them unworthy of living in America. In fact, it makes them unworthy to live period. If they get to decide on whether other people marry, then I get to decide whether or not they are allowed to live. Now run along you little cock jockey and try to pretend that I haven't beaten you in every political debate we've ever had. |
Quote:
|
Didn't they put the issue to vote in over 30 states this past election? It seems to me that the people have decided. Isn't that what you asked for? Now that it didn't go your way, you just sound like a sore loser.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
"Gravity" is a mental marker for a collection of physical effects, the cause and functions of which nobody really agrees on. "Rights" is a mental marker for a collection of ethical interactions, the effects of which we can see, the cause and function of which nobody really agrees on. |
Quote:
I suppose "gravity" itself cannot be proven or measured, but the effects of it can. But regardless of this, it can still be experienced - nobody can argue it does not exist. We can measure the effects of gravity. We can come up with mathematical formulas for gravity. You can't do that with "rights." |
The effects of violating someones rights can also be measured. Ever heard of the revolutionary war? Civil rights marches of the 60's? India winning independence from the United Kingdom?
|
Quote:
|
Here's the thing. Aside from nitpicky, circular-reasoning arguments about the definition and source of "rights," the point is what role popular opinion plays in our country's legislation.
Let's put aside the issue of constitutional interpretation too -- even if you're in love with the US constitution (and I have a lot of respect for it too) the fact is that it's experimental, it's constantly under review, and it wasn't handed down by divine authority. It is not imprimatur. The point of this is to question whether it is possible, if it is proper, if it is ethically sound to prevent a majority of citizens within a governmental unit - state, country, etc. - to pass a law that goes against what others perceive as being natural rights. Let's say for the sake of argument that 60% of a state's residents voted to make --oh, I dunno what -- anchovies on pizza illegal. Yet you, who love anchovies, and a lot of other people think it's your right to be able to order whatever pizza topping you want, and since it doesn't affect other people's pizza experience, you think it's a stupid law. Which it is. But if 60% of the people want it outlawed, you can't change that just by virtue of "having rights." Nope - your options are to go someplace that does allow anchovies, campaign to have the law rescinded, or eat them on the sly. The point is that it is not possible to keep a government that legislates by popular vote from doing some stupid things. The point is that it is not desirable to keep a government that legislates by popular vote from doing some stupid things. Why? Because to some, it's not stupid. The anti-anchovy activists believe in their cause. They are just as convinced that they have the right to ban toppings they don't enjoy. And maybe they do. It's totally a matter of opinion. How would they have this right? To follow your logic, Radar, perhaps they have the right to ban anchovies in retaliation to another group's assertion of "rights" that pissed them off. |
Quote:
You're awfully naive if you think those battles were fought for purely ideological reasons. I suppose you think the Civil War was about rights, too. |
Quote:
I am debating with a madman. :headshake Well, I was warned, and I didn't listen, eh? |
Quote:
|
It was about money and power, same as every war from the beginning of time. Rights were just a rationale, a PR spin.
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:12 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.