:nojive:
Not that I really care but I wnder why you classify people who disagree with the gay rights agenda as ignorant and stupid.
Since it's a matter of opinion, why is yours worth more than someone else's? Sounds like hate speech to me. Do you believe more hate will solve the problem you see?
~allewyn
From: there...no..there..... Insane since: May 2001
posted 03-17-2009 22:46
quote: Allewyn said:
why you classify people who disagree with the gay rights agenda as ignorant and stupid.
I'm not answering for NoJive, but I will say that the disagreement toward gay rights is ignorant and stupid. And, unless someone can prove to me otherwise, I will stand that position.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 03-17-2009 22:55
I would call it somewhat ignorant, yes. I would not go as far as to call disagreement with it stupid (though I certainly feel that it is, I do not consider that to be factual).
I would say that disagreement with Gay Rights is very difficult to defend, logically. I have yet to see or hear a logical reason against Gay Rights.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:I would say that disagreement with Gay Rights is very difficult to defend, logically. I have yet to see or hear a logical reason against Gay Rights
What is the logical in dept well thought out reason for Gay Rights?
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 03-18-2009 17:27
quote:What is the logical in dept well thought out reason for Gay Rights?
The same for all those who are unjustly oppressed and seeking equal rights, of course. The same logical well-thought out reasons that apply to Women, Indians, African Americans, Hispanics, etc.
In fact, I think it is the same as those in the Constitution, is it not?
You know "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
And so forth.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I don't usually participate in these discussions because they become strident and divisive so quickly, but I'm going to make a stab at it.
Rather than discussing 'Gay Rights', let's assume we're talking about the rights of Purple People. Is it just to say that just because a person is purple, they may not hold certain jobs, or use certain public facilities, or have equal protection under that law? Is it just to make laws that say that because a person is purple they must be kept separate from the rest of society and only have some of the rights and privileges the rest of the people in society have come to expect?
Before you answer the questions I've asked above, substitute for the word 'purple', any and all of the following: 'women', 'black', 'children', 'men', 'hispanic', etc.
I believe that none of these is just. The purple people deserver the same rights and privileges as everyone merely because they are human.
Basically we are asking the same question that has already been asked. Can we divide society into different groups for the purpose of oppressing some of the people in society? The answer to that question is always 'NO!'
Any time one group of people tries to create prejudice against another group of people, it is done in an attempt to control all the people, not just those against whom the prejudice is fostered. We must eliminate all forms of prejudice if we are to end oppression. Any time one group of people is oppressed, whether they be purple, black, yellow, white, red, brown, male, female, old, young, etc. it requires the efforts of the rest of society to oppress them. It takes away from society not only the abilities of the oppressed, but also of the oppressors and overall subtracts from society.
I hope this helps you understand a little bit of why many people feel it is wrong to remove the rights of any group of people just because they happen to be purple.
No offense, Hyperbole, but it is not a question of CAN we be divisive in society... as we obviously can and often are divisive in society. It is a question of SHOULD we which depends on the goals of the person in question.
So the question to ask someone is what is your goal in being against <pick your people>?
If their answer is to promote everyone... they are liars and one of the below.
If their answer is to promote those people over there... they are racists, bigots, or hatemongers. The very kindest they could be called is unjust and unfair.
If their answer is to uphold existing virtues or standards... they are misguided racists, bigots, or hatemongers. The very kindest they could be called is unjust and unfair.
It is this last category of people that I think we're calling ignorant. The rest of them are jsut what they are... Bigots, Racists, or Hatemongers. Allowing someone to enjoy the freedom that is rightfully theirs does not equal condoning their actions or accepting them... it just means you are tolerant of them. If you can't be tolerant of people different than yourself... why should ANYONE be tolerant of you? Starting to feel outnumbered?
While I am not personally homosexual and find the thought of male homosexuality distasteful (regardless of the fact that some of my most respected friends are homosexual and male), I steadfastly believe in every human being's right to freedom and equality, even if all people are not equal (most people are short/hairy and/or stupid, as far as I have observed, but that doesn't make them less human than I am).
Whether I personally feel like having someone's organ shoved up my arse or not, I would happily protect and defend any consenting adult couple's right to do whatever the f*** they please with eachother.
To criminalise personal freedom (and that's what those eighty countries do) is both stupid and ignorant, regardless of opinion - it is simply a fact that stupidity and ignorance are the only logical reasons (and poor excuses) for making criminals of people for the way they feel for each other.
Of course, I extend my beliefs beyond simply matters of sex and love, so I'm simply showing the same regard for equality and freedom in homosexuality as I do in many other aspects of the human condition.
I fear I suffer some prejudices (like expecting stupid people to do or say stupid things, for instance) but I recognise my failings, especially when they make me seem ignorant and stupid. As an example, I often argue that as an Englishman, it is my heritage and right to bloody well hate the French. I have only rarely met a French person that I haven't gotten on great with... but I still hate the French... mostly Parisians...
That's stupid and ignorant (even if it is mostly in jest) and I haven't yet criminalised the act of being French. If I did criminalise it, I'd be worse than stupid and ignorant, I'd be unworthy of the very rights and freedoms that I've denied a selected group of others.
Okay, okay - I must confess that I am prejudiced. I'm prejudiced against some groups, and I'm (perhaps, stupidly and ignorantly) proud to admit it. I'm prejudiced against arseholes, and I class anyone who would support criminalisation, imprisonment, or execution of people for 'being gay' (or French, purple, religious, non-religious, cannabis smokers, cat/dog lovers, etc.) a complete and total, utter arsehole.
Beyond that, everyone's entitled to their opinion, stupid and ignorant or otherwise.
From: there...no..there..... Insane since: May 2001
posted 03-19-2009 02:37
I do not think it is wrong for anyone to have their opinion be it stupid, ignorant or otherwise. It is when it oppresses peoples from living a life that they are entitled to.
As hyperbole pointed out, you can substitute the word "Gay" for whatever and apply the same denial of rights and see how absurd it sounds. Let's deny rights to people that have blonde hair and blue eyes.
I could be wrong, but I didn't see NJ's original post as calling those against gay rights ignorant and stupid. Maybe I was just being naive, but I read it along the lines of when people say, "...and still no cure for cancer" when hearing about some seemingly trivial scientific advancement.
Or maybe not. I don't know. Maybe NJ will clarify for us.
From: The Land of one Headlight on. Insane since: May 2001
posted 03-19-2009 12:58
=) Oh sure ask the old guy what he was thinking 3 months ago!
To me the religious argument against homosexuality is based on ignorance ergo stupid. So I was probably thinking that in those countries where homosexuality is punishable by law wouldn't it be grand if they passed another law against ignorance and stupidity. That could never happen of course because they displayed both states via the law against homosexuality.
Having one of those catch 22 type moments I'm sure. Now if I can only find my keys. =)
___________________________________________________________________________
?Privatize the Profits - Socialize the Losses.? Randi Rhodes
I watched a Simpson's episode last night where Homer Simpson was house sitting for Mr. Burns. Homer decided to take Mr. Burns' yacht out for spin into international waters so that he would be able to drink beer before 5 p.m. on a Sunday. Out there was also a man marrying a cow.
This brings me to a few questions:
What will the new definition of marriage be? Will we limit it to just two consenting people, no matter of sex (same-sex)? What about age (9-15 year olds)? What about number of people (Mormons)? What about species (dogs, cows, etc)?
Since America is a democratic republic, I would be inclined to say that the definiton of marriage in America should rest on what the people say it is. In other countries it should rest on their way of determining laws. But just because one person has a different idea of what marriage should be, that does not mean the government must endorse that particular ideology. The government must make rules and the government must draw lines. That's the role of a government. They are supposed to discriminate against what the society deems harmful.
Some public gray areas have already been through the legal system in America, like alcohol. First, the people wanted alcohol to not be sold in America. Once the people found out that created more problems than it solved, they changed the law again to allow alcohol to be sold. It took several years, but I think the best solution came out in the end. Some people still disagree.
Personally, I don't think America's government should endorse other definitions of marriage other than one man and one woman (for life btw). I have many reasons for my belief, and I believe that other forms of marriage could be potentially harmful for my country. But that is my belief and my opinion.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 05-29-2009 22:14
Hooboy.
So much here to address.
quote:What will the new definition of marriage be? Will we limit it to just two consenting people, no matter of sex (same-sex)? What about age (9-15 year olds)? What about number of people (Mormons)? What about species (dogs, cows, etc)?
The "new" definition of marriage? I don't see any reason for much of a new definition! It is between two loving, consenting individuals who are of legal age to marry.
To be honest - I also really don't have anything against marriages of more than two individuals. I just think that involving more than two individuals will require many more, complex laws governing what happens in case of a divorce. Imagine 20 men and 40 women (or vice versa, whatever) all married to one another, with children- I think that would get pretty messy if they (or some) decided to divorce.
Since animals cannot be considered to be consenting, and children are not of legal age to marry, I think that pretty much puts that all to rest.
quote:Since America is a democratic republic, I would be inclined to say that the definiton of marriage in America should rest on what the people say it is.
Ermmm...no. That is just so screwed up, I quite frankly find it difficult, no, incredulous to believe that I am reading it! Even coming from you this is just so unbelievably screwed up, it blows my mind!
We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights created to prevent just the sort of thing you are suggesting! It is the job of the Goverment of the USA to impliment and uphold what is in those papers.
Now, The People do have the right to Amend the Constitution - so if enough believed that something should be such and such a way, then it could be done. However, it doesn't look like there are enough to do that.
End of that line of thought.
I find it truly discerning how people like you, Gid, can deny others equal rights. I also find it appalling that you are suggesting that it will somehow "harm" things? How in the HELL could it harm things? The way it is currently is harming things!
One does not have to like or agree with the lifestyles of others to be tolerant of said lifestyle. That they would want the same rights and privileges of others around them seems a pretty natural thing to me, and one that should be granted to them according to our Constitution.
As has been said - substitute the word "Gay" for any other and see if you can still retain your position. Start with the word Gideon2.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I have been hearing for decades about the "harmful" effects of gay marriage.
I have yet to hear a single person actually iterate any such harmful effects.
Reading through these few examples I did not see your definition in there at all. I saw many restrictions and regulations upon who can marry. Each of these restrictions is wrestled over in court and in legislature and finally agreed upon by representatives in the government. A few of the definitions included same-sex marriage. Others did not. The point is that each time the definition changes (which they do often), there is a new defintion. Where do we as a people want this definition to go?
[btw] According to law, children under the age of 18 are not of legal age to marry (in most states) unless they have parental consent. Then it is okay. [/btw]
Unfortunately, an open definition does not "put to rest" everything which can come up. The government must draw lines and must make distinctions unless we will get those problems of 40 person families who want a divorce. (You yourself put restrictions in your short definition of marriage)
How do we come up with those distinctions? The people elect representatives, then those representatives make laws based on the interests of those they represent. That is how government works in America. America is a democratic republic. Not an oligarchy. Not a democracy. You are right that we have such documents like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect our rights. But "we the people" also have been given the power to change those laws when we need to. Who are you to say what is right and wrong? What makes you the judge of morality and equality in our country? That power belongs to the people.
side note:
quote: WebShaman said:
As has been said - substitute the word "Gay" for any other and see if you can still retain your position.
Polygamist, communist, socialist, alcoholic, pedophile, prostitute. I can go on if you would like.
[disclaimer: I personally am not against the first three, but I know that others in this country are, so I submit to the country when I live here.]
The people elect representatives, then those representatives make laws based on the interests of those they represent. That is how government works in America.
No, it's not
And it never has been.
The point to our system of government is precisely the fact that those elected do NOT simply follow popular opinion.
Our government, in principle if not in practice, is there to protect the rights of the people, including - quite particularly - those who might not have the majority opinion.
Communists/socialists are fine so long as they choose to be communist, and don't FORCE others to be. It's a belief system -- it may be wrong or even stupid, but it's a choice.
Alcoholics/prostitutes are fine, so long as they don't FORCE anyone to join them and don't harm those who do not wish to be harmed. It's a career path -- it may be wrong or even stupid, but it's a choice.
Pedophiles f*** people who lack the experience, intelligence, or development to consent. Pedophilia functions exactly like other sexual orientations, but it is bad because the people that pedophiles are attracted to can't consent -- ever. What this means is that pedophiles aren't inherently bad people, but pedophilia is a little bad (though not bad or controllable enough to warrant punishment to the person experiencing it), and pedophiles who act on their desires are bad people -- whether they wanted to act on those desires or not.
I don't necessarily hate polygamists, but I do think it's pretty weird -- and while I've never experienced such feelings, I'd theorize that they're composed more of lust than love: love is when you find a single person whose genes are compatible with yours (and there are many ways to tell) and wish to spend your life producing genetically superior offspring with them; whereas lust is the wish to screw everything that moves, with the sole intent of spreading your own genes around with no regard as to the genetic superiority of the resulting offspring. Polygamy involves by definition the screwing of several people by one person, so it seems to be motivated more by lust (the desire to screw a lot of people) than love (the desire to screw one -- maybe two depending on your personality -- people). Again, though, as I'm not a polygamist and I've never met a polygamist; and as my mind has developed abnormally, diminishing my social and emotional processing in favor of logical mental processing; and as I am unable to read the minds of anyone, much less people I don't even know; I can only make a blind guess as to the actual motives of polygamy.
Now, one could name criminals (child molesters, murderers, etc.), but that argument could be counter-argued with the point that by violating the rights of others and by having that violation proven in court, the criminals in question have thus relinquished their own rights -- to a point.
Because Gid is an individual and I think it would be too much work for the government to have a list of people who can't marry and keep up on it at all times.
They may be allowed to marry to some extent. The polygamist may be able to marry one person but cannot marry how he or she wants in our country, and the pedophile must have parental consent before he or she marries a minor.
My point with that list is that the government does restrict some privledges or rights from some people. Polygamists are not allowed to legally marry more than one person. Communists and socialists used to not be allowed to change our government. Alcoholics are not allowed to drive under the influence. Pedophiles aren't allowed to marry minors without parent consent. Prostitutes (especially sex slaves) are not allowed to sell their bodies for money in most states.
You never said your definition was the legal definition. Netiher did I claim it was. I was just pointing out that your definition was not the legal definition. My point with that was that we would have to change the legal definition to make your definition fit. My question then was: where do we draw the line?
quote: DL-44 said:
those elected do NOT simply follow popular opinion
Is there a reason they must follow someone's opinion?
The point, gideon, is that their job - among other things - is to ensure the rights of the people. You cannot assure the rights of the people by simply doing what the majority wants, because inevitably what the majority wants will infringe on the rights of the minority.
This is also precisely why your arguments in response to WS's post are irrelevant to his point. You are taking examples in which the actions taken by the people you describe directly infringe on other people's rights.
2 consenting adults marrying each other does absolutely nothing to infringe anyone else's rights. You have yet to offer any actual reason that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry, other than "I don't think they should".
Side note: I am trying to find an article that I read just a couple of weeks ago, and not having any luck. Perhaps someone else will be able to find it - it was a summary of the decision of a judge in Idaho in a case attempting to ban gay marriage in the state, and it was extremely well stated. If I can find it again, I will post it...
Is it just to say that just because a person is purple, they may not hold certain jobs, or use certain public facilities, or have equal protection under that law? Is it just to make laws that say that because a person is purple they must be kept separate from the rest of society and only have some of the rights and privileges the rest of the people in society have come to expect?
...
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've written hyperbole, but I'm not all that sure how applicable any of it is to the discussion of gay rights - at least from the standpoint of a US citizen.
While I certainly believe in equal rights for all, I think this whole gay rights movement is largely nonsense and equating it with genuine civil rights movements (I don't mean to say that you are) does a disservice for genuine civil rights movements. For the most part, I fail to see where the civil rights of gays are being trampled on exclusively. No matter how proponents frame it, it really isn't anything like slavery and so on.
Edit:
It's been a while since I've posted but I hope everyone is doing well.
quote:Communists and socialists used to not be allowed to change our government.
Neither are conservatives, liberals, independents, minors, majors, soldiers, civilians, web developers, n00bs, hackers, crackers, modders, gamers, readers, writers, TV viewers, Twitterers, anarchists, Democrats, Republicans, gays, straights, bis, musicians, artists, painters, sketchers, sculptors, forumgoers, /b/tards, trolls, Wikipedians, Halopedians, programmers, scripters, userscripters, script kiddies, spammers, scammers, minorities, majorities, pessimists, optimists, extroverts, introverts, perfectionists, procrastinators, slobs, neatfreaks... The only group that is "allowed" to change our government is the group of people who work for the government. Not even the majority can change the government, though it certainly has a very powerful if indirect influence on the government's functioning.
quote:Alcoholics are not allowed to drive under the influence.
We tried politely asking them not to run people over, killing, injuring, or permanently rendering comatose innocent people who did nothing wrong... but it didn't work.
quote:Pedophiles aren't allowed to marry minors without parent consent.
We tried politely asking them not to commit sexual acts that the minors, not being emotionally or developmentally ready to experience, would be emotionally or psychologically harmed by... but it didn't work.
quote:Prostitutes (especially sex slaves) are not allowed to sell their bodies for money in most states.
We tried politely asking them to try not to distribute STDs and other contagions, thereby drastically increasing the prevalence of such afflictions... but it didn't work.
quote:No matter how proponents frame it, it really isn't anything like slavery and so on.
The manifestation of the bigotry is different (no marriage instead of no freedom), but the bigotry itself is the same. Hell, if slavery and lynching and hate crimes weren't taboo, it'd probably be a lot more similar to the "genuine civil rights movements" that you're thinking of.
Also, sorry for the double-post -- Jestah must've posted while I was typing my other post.
The manifestation of the bigotry is different (no marriage instead of no freedom), but the bigotry itself is the same. Hell, if slavery and lynching and hate crimes weren't taboo, it'd probably be a lot more similar to the "genuine civil rights movements" that you're thinking of.
I disagree on the bigotry part but that's not all that relevant because it's not the alleged bigotry that's the issue but rather the suppression of rights. It's hard for me to hold a straight face when people compare slavery or lynching to insurance claims or inheritance issues but, as I said above, those issues aren't really exclusive to gay rights. I support equal rights for all but I think a lot of what gets brought up under the banner of gay rights is relatively small potatoes.
Of course I'm limiting this to the United States. I recognize the topic deals with global views but I don't know all that much about other countries.
but I think a lot of what gets brought up under the banner of gay rights is relatively small potatoes.
Well...it's all small potatoes to the people who are not affected by it...
Having never been lynched, enslaved, or denied the right to marry the person that I love...I guess I am not qualified to say how big each potato might be...
I do, however, imagine that although the potatoes might be different sizes, they all feel pretty painful when shoved where we don't want them...
Well...it's all small potatoes to the people who are not affected by it...
I don't know if you have to necessarily be enslaved or lynched to come to the conclusion that it's a little different than your significant other not being on your insurance.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-06-2009 12:55
I must say, Jester, that you are really going off on a tangeant.
One could draw the same "similarities" between Sufferage and the Gay Rights Movement, if it sits better with your sensibilities.
It is called Equal Rights - it is not about what different groups that were denied equal rights have gone through, but rather that they should have equal rights!
Is that too difficult to understand?
I loathe the excuse that some are gathering under, to keep denying Gays Equal Rights - that it somehow is not "worthy enough" because Gays have not suffered enough or as much as other groups that have gotten equal rights.
Why should such matter? It is not about how much this or that group has suffered - that is just distracting from the point here. It is about Equal Rights and the granting thereof.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Not to mention the number of gays who have been persecuted up to and including torture and murder because of their sexual orientation. Although the number may be smaller, the treatment is the same as what many blacks suffered at various points in our history.
You're jumping to conclusions that I'm not making. I'm not suggesting at all that gays haven't suffered as much as other groups and are therefore not worthy of equal rights.
It's not that I don't support gay marriage. It's I simply do not see which civil rights are actually being violated.
Not to mention the number of gays who have been persecuted up to and including torture and murder because of their sexual orientation. Although the number may be smaller, the treatment is the same as what many blacks suffered at various points in our history.
People are persecuted, tortured, and murdered for various reasons DL. None of that holds any relevance to this discussion.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-06-2009 22:05
quote:You're jumping to conclusions that I'm not making.
I wasn't aware that I made any conclusions regarding you (ok, one could perhaps consider "going off on a tangeant" perhaps to be a conclusion, but I don't)
*insert shrug Slimie here*
You do not see which civil rights are being violated? You mean not being granted, right?
There is a difference between violating rights that have been given, and not having granted those rights in the first place.
AFAIK, I don't see rights being "violated" in that sense - because they have not yet been granted.
That is why they are being asked for, IMHO.
And I can only reiterate what DL has posted to your reply:
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
A failure to grant rights that are deserved could kinda be considered a violation of those rights. During slavery, blacks' rights weren't violated because they never had rights -- but I would still consider the actions of slaveowners as violating their slaves' rights, despite the fact that the slaves didn't officially have such rights.
quote:Are things like this small potatoes too?
As an irrelevant but has-been-bugging-me-for-a-while side note, why don't most life sentences actually last for the rest of the convicted's life, and why does "concurrent sentencing" exist?
No matter how proponents frame it, it really isn't anything like slavery and so on.
While I am sure someone out there has done it, I have never heard anyone equate the issue to slavery.
More importantly, the black civil rights movement had nothing to do with slavery, and the real core of the movement took place nearly a century after the abolition of slavery.
The movement was entirely about being able to do the same things as anyone else, and eliminating the laws and/or the legally tolerated behaviors that excluded them from doing so.
I fail to see how the two are not part of the same fight...
I'm always up for conversation but if you're going to go into it being dishonest there isn't a real lot of incentive for me to bother with the discussion. If you want to talk like a normal person that's fine. If not, that's also fine.
posted 12-15-2008 17:50
