Anyone being affected by Proposition 8? - Page 7

Juniper · 11-15-2008, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Are you having fun yet Juni? lol

Yup.

Bruce 9012 · 11-15-2008, 08:16 PM

To each there own...Just dont screw up my children

Juniper · 11-15-2008, 08:34 PM

Well, you can list any number of opinions - smart men, great philosophers, but I'm still not convinced that is proof. Gravity can be proven and quantified. Love, much like rights, means different things to different people. Rights aren't something you can see, smell, touch, etc. so all those philosophers are just saying these "rights" are the way people should behave, ethically and ideally.

This argument is kind of silly anyway -- fundamentally we do not disagree. We do agree on what is right and wrong, what is best for society in general (with a few important exceptions).

I just don't think that life comes with any guarantees. The only "rights" you get are the ones you're lucky enough to be given or strong enough to take.

I do however appreciate your explanation of the pro-choice rationale. I disagree, but at least I understand better what I am disagreeing with.

smoothmoniker · 11-15-2008, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juniper

Gravity can be proven and quantified

Anyone who believes that hasn't been paying attention to physics in the last 20 years.

"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.

Juniper · 11-16-2008, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Anyone who believes that hasn't been paying attention to physics in the last 20 years.

"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.

OK, you got me - I am not well versed in physics.

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."

regular.joe · 11-15-2008, 10:05 PM

Just to throw in a thought or two. All this talk about rights, definition of marriage. What we are really talking about is changing deep cultural behavior/beliefs. Changing a deep cultural behavior, something that has been around for at least a couple of thousand years, probably won't happen in 50 years. It will take a bit more time for that to sink in.

xoxoxoBruce · 11-15-2008, 11:18 PM

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.

Radar · 11-15-2008, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

Gay people have been around for as long as straight people. The fact that this is even an issue is insane.

Radar · 11-15-2008, 11:26 PM

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.

classicman · 11-15-2008, 11:43 PM

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.

Radar · 11-16-2008, 12:12 AM

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?

Juniper · 11-16-2008, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

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?

No, I've never heard of the Revolutionary War. What was that about?

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.

Radar · 11-16-2008, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juniper

No, I've never heard of the Revolutionary War. What was that about?

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.

It was about rights. The rights of the people in some states to secede from the union. The states entered voluntarily into the unions, and according to the U.S. Constitution, they have the legitimate authority to leave the union.

Juniper · 11-16-2008, 12:29 AM

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.

Juniper · 11-16-2008, 12:58 AM

It was about money and power, same as every war from the beginning of time. Rights were just a rationale, a PR spin.

11-15-2008, 10:05 PM	#6
regular.joe Старый сержант Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: NC, dreaming of large Russian women. Posts: 1,464	Just to throw in a thought or two. All this talk about rights, definition of marriage. What we are really talking about is changing deep cultural behavior/beliefs. Changing a deep cultural behavior, something that has been around for at least a couple of thousand years, probably won't happen in 50 years. It will take a bit more time for that to sink in. __________________ Birth, wealth, and position are valueless during wartime. Man is only judged by his character --Soldier's Testament. Death, like birth, is a secret of Nature. - Marcus Aurelius.

11-15-2008, 11:18 PM	#7
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	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. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

11-15-2008, 11:26 PM	#9
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	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. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

11-15-2008, 11:43 PM	#10
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	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. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

11-16-2008, 12:12 AM	#11
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	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? __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

11-15-2008, 08:16 PM	#2
Bruce 9012 Living in the blast crater Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Dayton, Oh Posts: 123	To each there own...Just dont screw up my children

11-15-2008, 08:34 PM	#3
Juniper I know, right? Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,539	Well, you can list any number of opinions - smart men, great philosophers, but I'm still not convinced that is proof. Gravity can be proven and quantified. Love, much like rights, means different things to different people. Rights aren't something you can see, smell, touch, etc. so all those philosophers are just saying these "rights" are the way people should behave, ethically and ideally. This argument is kind of silly anyway -- fundamentally we do not disagree. We do agree on what is right and wrong, what is best for society in general (with a few important exceptions). I just don't think that life comes with any guarantees. The only "rights" you get are the ones you're lucky enough to be given or strong enough to take. I do however appreciate your explanation of the pro-choice rationale. I disagree, but at least I understand better what I am disagreeing with.

11-16-2008, 12:29 AM	#14
Juniper I know, right? Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,539	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.

11-16-2008, 12:58 AM	#15
Juniper I know, right? Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,539	It was about money and power, same as every war from the beginning of time. Rights were just a rationale, a PR spin.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)