Cannot fault your logic one bit there. Hmmmm let me think this over. Perhaps, I may need to change my view on the legitimacy of the protests in San Francisco after all. I want to spend a bit more time thinking over what you have said though first to see if there are any other scenarios where your logic might flounder. None come to mind now.
There, your sensible post should serve as a model for this forum about how sensible rational well-made arguments can win the day… you know as opposed to the mindless, kneejerk, senselessly amoral, narcissistic nihilism of the Left.
Hmmmm one more point, what about programs that involve not rights but privileges? Go back to my comment regarding a white person who refuses to properly process black applications regarding anything involving affirmative action. What do you say about this then? Is this an acceptable area for a white “protester” to shut down the system? The point in question would be that the Black applicant or Latino or Native American would be getting privileges that someone could determine should not be granted since this was not granted to ALL citizens. Right?
Second, during a draft (which we no longer have) could a man say that he refuses to serve because women are not required to fight as well?
Third, our tax code is riddled with privileges and incentives to buy houses, save money for retirement, for children, etc. What opportunities for legitimate civil disobedience exist in this area? Quite frankly it bewilders the mind.
Again, then we must agree that marriage is a “right” for all and that civil unions are somehow an unacceptable “separate but equal” approach. Have we arrived at that point?
I am heavily leaning towards being convinced by your argument but would appreciate comments on the above two points first.
Fascinating as always discussing these issues with you. It has been a thought-provoking learning experience.
This is what it’s all about, folks. Courage and perserverence:
[quote]Even if a California judge slams a hammer down on Newsom, as in issuing a “cease and desist” order against any more weddings, a big, clear picture is emerging from this kind of mobilization: The same-sex marriage movement is rolling. It will not be stopped.
Logically, I believe it follows on from what i wrote. Yes.
What the US seems to me to have invoked in the past is the idea that it is better for EVERYONE if these affirmative action programmes are in place. It makes the US a better country. Whether or not that is a convincing argument is open to question.
Logically, again, yes.
Although in this instance the military has always invoked some idea that it would affect the efficiency of the force… or some way of paraphrasing that… if women were to serve in some positions. Again, whether or not that is convincing…
But so long as there is equal access to this, its not a problem. I guess it is some sort of claim that there is unequal access that is at the bottom of the SF debacle.
"These movements demand unflinching patience and determination from their adherents. "
did newsom show determination? undoubtedly yes. patience? absolutely not. he couldn’t be bothered with convincing people to agree with him so he took the law into his own hands.
I am convinced and therefore will change my stance on the question of legitimacy in this case. I now believe that the merits for acceptable civil disobedience exist in this case. Thanks for the lucid responses.
I’m glad you’ve come around in your views but I still must correct some blatant untruths that you repeated several times iin your arguments:
[quote=“fred smith”]I have not heard of anyone telling me of any right that gays do not have currently except for the question of joint filing for taxes. AND that in my opinion falls under “privilege.”
Gays can form civil unions which allow for all manner of insurance and legal protection. Gays can adopt. Gays can vote. Gays cannot be discriminated against in hiring, etc. etc. etc.[/quote]
Civil union exists in exactly 1 state in the US (Vermont).
Gays cannot adopt as a couple in most states.
Less than a dozen states have passed laws banning anti-gay discrimination in hiring.
Have we forgotten that just a few months ago, the Texas attorney general (with supporting briefs from many other states) was in the Supreme Court defending the state’s right to imprison two men for having consensual private sex in their own home?
So funny to read the all-purpose, (majority-)crowd-pleasing argument that’s trotted out against affirmative action/ant-discrminination laws/gay marriage/etc.: “They already have equal rights, now they want MORE!”
Apologies but I still do NOT know the situation on the ground in most states and certainly none of the proponents of gay marriage were able to offer those facts to support their cases here on this thread. All they were doing was shrilly demanding this, that and the other.
Regardless, I have as you will note, changed my view and have moved from disinterest to supporting gay marriage fully. If you can supply any further details on the exact status of these injustices, please feel free to do so. I am sure that I and others on this forum would appreciate having some FACTS about this matter.
Again, I recognize the civil disobedience in question as being justified and I think that given some sensible rational discussion of the subject, so would most Americans.
My perception (perhaps mistaken) was that these rights were already offered. Every contract I have ever seen has given me the impression that race, religion, creed, etc. AND sexual orientation are all covered under antidiscrimination laws.
Please educate me if this is in fact a misconception. I am all ears (or should I say eyes).
[quote=“SCL”]Civil union exists in exactly 1 state in the US (Vermont).
Gays cannot adopt as a couple in most states.
Less than a dozen states have passed laws banning anti-gay discrimination in hiring.
Have we forgotten that just a few months ago, the Texas attorney general (with supporting briefs from many other states) was in the Supreme Court defending the state’s right to imprison two men for having consensual private sex in their own home?[/quote]
Can you explain how these things are rights? Is a right to sodomy in the US Constitution?
[quote=“RegularJoe”][quote=“SCL”]Civil union exists in exactly 1 state in the US (Vermont).
Gays cannot adopt as a couple in most states.
Less than a dozen states have passed laws banning anti-gay discrimination in hiring.
Have we forgotten that just a few months ago, the Texas attorney general (with supporting briefs from many other states) was in the Supreme Court defending the state’s right to imprison two men for having consensual private sex in their own home?[/quote]
Can you explain how these things are rights? Is a right to sodomy in the US Constitution?[/quote]
What does sodomy have to do with anything? Did SCL mention that?
[quote=“RegularJoe”]
Can you explain how these things are rights? Is a right to sodomy in the US Constitution?[/quote]
Well, there is a right to privacy in the US Constitution, which the Supreme Court used as grounds for striking down the Texas law. As a result, the law of the land tells the government to stay the fuck out of people’s bedrooms when it comes to sex between consenting adults. So, one could argue that now there is a right to sodomy in the US Constitution.
Its hard to see what business it is of the state to regulate the bahviour of consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes. There are no national security interests here… no harm is being done to others. The state is there to resolve disputes between people - not to interfere with their enjoyment of each other.
You know, if you are so upset about this, then certainly you’d be putting just as much energy into railing against all of the porn movies in the last 40 years and up until today that have featured lesbian sex. I mean, according to you, that isn’t a right, right?
Thank you for your input. I apologize for not making the effort myself to check up on all of these facts, but I really do have my work cut out for me as the resident expert on Iraq, taxes and pizza. I hope you can appreciate my dilemma. :s In all seriousness, however, thanks for the information and the effort.
