Anyone being affected by Proposition 8?

[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.

[Radar]

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.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And this from the same a-hole who said throw out the bastards who don't agree with me. What a tard.

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.

[Radar]

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.

[classicman]

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.

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by Radar

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.

Well then you better stock up on bullets because you've got 6,156,848 "unworthy" people that you need to take care of oh Constitutional Savior.

[smoothmoniker]

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]

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."

[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?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

Well then you better stock up on bullets because you've got 6,156,848 "unworthy" people that you need to take care of oh Constitutional Savior.

I'm sure I could get all the bullets I want donated by those whose civil rights they violated. Although with that many people, I might have to set up a system like they had in Auschwitz. Either that or turn them into soilent green for starving African nations. It would certainly make America a better place to live in. If I killed them all, I wouldn't be doing anything worse than they did to gay people.

[Juniper]

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]

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.

[Juniper]

Originally Posted by Radar

It would certainly make America a better place to live in. If I killed them all, I wouldn't be doing anything worse than they did to gay people.

Oh shit, hang on - you're actually saying that voting against gay marriage is equivalent to murder?

I am debating with a madman.

Well, I was warned, and I didn't listen, eh?

[Radar]

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]

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