Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PizzaMonkey
Republican-bashing... Can't this go any other way? That's a cheap shot. Personally, I don't think gay marraige has any immediate effect on me. But allowing it would definitely make legislators more ... bold. You know, something like:
"We managed to get gay marraige legalized, now we can do anything we want."
Something that was once taboo is now strongly argued for. How long till someone who believes in killing everyone over 60 gets a strong backing and goes on a campaign? Okay that's a little ridiculous, but you get my point, i think.
|
And on the converse, there were people who thought the world would come to an end when they had to sit at the same lunch counter with people who had different color skin.
Was this a symbol of liberalism? Yes. Was it wrong? No.
You also seem to confuse the giving of rights with the taking of rights (in this case the right of someone over 60 to live).
I grew up studying WWII Germany, and the one thing I believe I have come to understand is that noone loses by giving people more freedom. It is only when we try to carve out exceptions for one group or another and say that they are not entitled to the same rights and freedoms that we risk the rights that have been given to us. We are all minorities, subject to the tyranny of the majority. Only there is no true majority, only a host of minorities who can be banded together in fear or hatred to deny other groups their rights.
We can call it security, tradition, God's will, or just the 'right way', but in the end we really cannot come up with any reason beyond that it makes us 'uncomfortable'.
Sorry about the rant. "My Own Native Land" and "I Wanna Love You Forever" were playing on my MP3 player, and there is nothing more dangerous than listening to emotional ballads when writing about politics. I am, however, serious about the point. The Bible teaches us to 'cast our bread upon the waters'. The same holds true of our freedoms.
UG thinks I disagree with the idea of America sharing it's concept of democracy with the world. In reality, I only believe that America cannot force it's concept of democracy on people who are unwilling to reach for it themselves or share it with their fellow citizens.
We have a group of people who want to realize the dream of having their union recognized and be treated with the same dignity as other citizens.
We have other groups who feel that by granting this, what they have will somehow be diluted, as if freedom is a zero sum game where ones freedom can only be measured by what someone else doesn't have.
I have seen some people on this board (UG) measure the strength of an argument by taking the most extreme people who believe in a position and hold them up as an example. So I will now perform the amazing first-time-on-the-Cellar double straw man manuever.
If you had to choose between Fred Phelps and Rosie O'Donnell, whose hand would you rather walk up and shake?