[sunitaishot]

If liberal democracy means that all in a society have the same basic rights, is it consistent to oppose gay rights, in one believes liberal democracy is a desired system?

[themuzicman]

Depends if you mean rights that gays actually have, or the special privileges they are trying to claim as rights.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by sunitaishot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If liberal democracy means that all in a society have the same basic rights, is it consistent to oppose gay rights, in one believes liberal democracy is a desired system?

Of course you can. There are plenty of logical reasons not to acknowledge homosexuality. However, it's not a matter of rationality or logic - it's the debate of implicit discrimination by not acknowledging, or explicit acceptance (or rejection) by acknowledging it.

Racism and sexism are codified into law by the very laws protecting gender and racial differences. The existence of those laws is evidence that racism and sexism are an ongoing problem in society. Is enforced morality any better than morality of general consensus?

[zibber]

Sure. Straight white men have always been the most vocal champions of democratic principles.

It's perfectly possible to be a total hypocrite dickfaced piece of shit asshole.

[sunitaishot]

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Of course you can. There are plenty of logical reasons not to acknowledge homosexuality. However, it's not a matter of rationality or logic - it's the debate of implicit discrimination by not acknowledging, or explicit acceptance (or rejection) by acknowledging it. Racism and sexism are codified into law by the very laws protecting gender and racial differences. The existence of those laws is evidence that racism and sexism are an ongoing problem in society. Is enforced morality any better than morality of general consensus?

These laws exist since society condemns racism and sexism. Most instances of racism and sexism are condemned. Slavery is illegal, due to its perceived immorality.

It seems hypocritical to support a general ethos of equal rights, and then deny these to some members.

---------- Post added 06-15-2012 at 08:51 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Depends if you mean rights that gays actually have, or the special privileges they are trying to claim as rights.

So equal rights for all and then for some concurrently? Can a liberal democracy ever discriminate against persons?

[paleoeco]

There are no such things as "gay rights". There are, however, rights which are excluded to gay people merely because they are gay.

Also, it's important to understand and define "basic rights". What are those? And if some rights are "basic", what are other types of "rights"? Now, are the rights themselves defined in such a way to exclude a particular group?

Examples of this would be: "All men are equal before the law". Now, we can hold this up as an ideal and believe that everyone has the "basic right" to be viewed as equal before the law. But, do we construe this to mean "men" as in biological gender and therefore exclude women? If so, then we're defining the basic right in a way the deliberate excludes a portion from that right. Therefore, it is possible to define a basic right in such a way that it would be "consistent" to say that women are not equal in the eyes of the law and not be in some violation of saying I support basic rights, but not women's rights, and still believe in a liberal democracy.

Furthermore, we need to consider what protections are in place in a liberal democracy to prevent unfettered "rule of the majority". If there are none, then whatever the majority claims is a "basic right" is democratically decided, and therefore, internally consistent with the concept of liberal democracy and basic rights.

And a last comment: I'd like someone to give examples of what "special right" gays are asking for that straights wouldn't get?

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by sunitaishot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So equal rights for all and then for some concurrently? Can a liberal democracy ever discriminate against persons?

A liberal democracy always discriminates against persons. Single people pay higher tax rates than married people. That's discrimination. People who own homes can claim mortgage interest as a tax deduction. Renters can't. That's discrimination. People who kill others for fun are jailed for murder. People who kill others in self-defense don't. That's discrimination.


There's discrimination all over the place in a liberal democracy. But we accept that different people are treated differently because of conditions that make things actually different.

What we call "civil rights" are actually civil obligations in that we ought not (and cannot by law) treat someone differently for an arbitrary condition such as race, sex, creed, or religion.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What we call "civil rights" are actually civil obligations in that we ought not (and cannot by law) treat someone differently for an arbitrary condition such as race, sex, creed, or religion.

Therefore we have abandoned the principle of civil equality by making sex important in granting marriage licenses.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Therefore we have abandoned the principle of civil equality by making sex important in granting marriage licenses.

Maybe. Then again, maybe not. The license isn't issued so that two people may marry. Two people may go take vows together without obtaining a license. There is no law against that.

The license is granted so that those who meet the qualifications may be extended benefits and privileges because they meet a particular need in our culture. Namely procreation.

So, the right to freely associate (through vows) is not violated at all.

And privileges given to those who may procreate together is not a violation of anyone's rights.

[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Maybe. Then again, maybe not. The license isn't issued so that two people may marry. Two people may go take vows together without obtaining a license. There is no law against that. The license is granted so that those who meet the qualifications may be extended benefits and privileges because they meet a particular need in our culture. Namely procreation. So, the right to freely associate (through vows) is not violated at all. And privileges given to those who may procreate together is not a violation of anyone's rights.

Same tired refrain.

1) Homosexuals most certainly can (and do) have children of their own.

2) Homosexuals can most certainly (and do) raise healthy, effective children.

3) Therefore, we're back to discriminating against gender for no reason other than tradition.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Same tired refrain. 1) Homosexuals most certainly can (and do) have children of their own.

With someone else.

	2) Homosexuals can most certainly (and do) raise healthy, effective children.

That's a different tax credit, available to everyone.

	3) Therefore, we're back to discriminating against gender for no reason other than tradition.

No. Not yet.

[Subgenius]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Depends if you mean rights that gays actually have, or the special privileges they are trying to claim as rights.

Ok, so what are these special privileges?

[mieu]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	With someone else.

How do you feel about the following scenarios?

A single mother marries a man who isn't her baby's father.
A divorced person remarries and their children are legally adopted by the new parent.
A sterile person or married couple in which one member is sterile adopts?

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by mieu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How do you feel about the following scenarios? A single mother marries a man who isn't her baby's father.

It's called being a "step parent"

	A divorced person remarries and their children are legally adopted by the new parent.

The step parent becomes a legal guardian.

	A sterile person or married couple in which one member is sterile adopts?

They become legal guardians.

(FYI, there is no right to adoption.)

[Subgenius]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Depends if you mean rights that gays actually have, or the special privileges they are trying to claim as rights.

Ok, so what are these special privileges?

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The license is granted so that those who meet the qualifications may be extended benefits and privileges because they meet a particular need in our culture. Namely procreation.

Can we get some citations for this statement?

[ManWithNoName]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The license is granted so that those who meet the qualifications may be extended benefits and privileges because they meet a particular need in our culture. Namely procreation.

Do you have any citation that this is why the state grants the liscence to be married? And that it grants it under the conditions that they will procreate?

As it seems to grant it basically regardless of if the married individuals (gay or straight) intend to procreate, as plenty of people get married and do not have children. And allows plenty of people to get married in mixed families and such whom don't procreate and just raise childen from previous failed marriages.

If it's not codified in law or something somewhere then you can't really say that the state allows people to get married because of procreation and that gay people do not meet this clause. The only thing you can say is that you would like the basis of marriage to be for procreation.

And which you should logically also be protesting against all people who get married and don't procreate. That is, if you don't want to be discrimintory against gay people, where you allow straight people to get married who have no intention of procreation but not gay people.

[vampyroteuthis]

If procreation legitimizes marriage, then Christians should have no problem with remaining unmarried until after a child is born. And given the possibility of infant mortality, maybe successful procreation should be assessed at the end of the offspring's life and marriage conferred posthumously if need be. Unless all procreation is desirable. But this is false because procreation keeps producing naturalized second-class citizens and this is not a desirable outcum for humanity. Maybe all marriages should be assessed at the Rapture for how much good to humanity all the descendants of any given couple did.

Alternatively, if sperm and egg count as individual lives, then everyone is procreating all the time, better than bunnies. And if life begins with sperm meeting egg, then Plan B is the new talaq talaq talaq.

[MechanicalSun]

Yes.
Majority rules.

[Zsych]

Rights are just a matter of collective agreement. They need to get the same rights everyone else would have.

[sunitaishot]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A liberal democracy always discriminates against persons. Single people pay higher tax rates than married people. That's discrimination. People who own homes can claim mortgage interest as a tax deduction. Renters can't. That's discrimination. People who kill others for fun are jailed for murder. People who kill others in self-defense don't. That's discrimination.

A non-sequitur, if there ever was one. I never cited in this thread that those who kill in self-defence should be jailed for murder.

	There's discrimination all over the place in a liberal democracy. But we accept that different people are treated differently because of conditions that make things actually different. What we call "civil rights" are actually civil obligations in that we ought not (and cannot by law) treat someone differently for an arbitrary condition such as race, sex, creed, or religion.

OK. But my basic point was that most who oppose gay rights would still (as with most in Western society) support a system of equal rights for all. It's even considered immoral in some sense to disapprove of liberal democracy. I don't see how a belief in liberal democracy is consistent with not allowing gays equal rights.

Some may cite the Bible as the reason why, but that's BS. Democracy is not Biblical or even religious concept, so religious beliefs are immaterial.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by ManWithNoName To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do you have any citation that this is why the state grants the liscence to be married? And that it grants it under the conditions that they will procreate?

His ass.

[Tocsin]

	Originally Posted by MechanicalSun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes. Majority rules.

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."
--Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

If the purpose of marriage is specifically for procreation, why do we allow infertile men or women to marry, or women long past child bearing age?

If we allow other people who cannot, or do not, intend to generate offspring to wed, why not people of the same sex?

If there is a reason why this right should be denied to one group but not others, what is it?

If there is no reasonable basis, then it is merely oppression, no matter how much the oppressors would like to pretend otherwise.

And, "God hates fags" is not a reasonable basis - at least not for a civil government (its fine for a theocracy).

[SarcasticVlad]

Of course.




We call those people ignorant hypocrites.

[nettneu]

	Originally Posted by sunitaishot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If liberal democracy means that all in a society have the same basic rights ...

Depends what you mean by "same". Actually many rights are much more valuable to some people than others. Is the right to education the "same" for a very intelligent person as for someone who's too educationally subnormal to benefit from much of it? Is the right to free exercise of religion the "same" for an atheist as for a fanatical sun-worshipper - or would it only become equal if it was extended to cover non-religious practices that people might like to exercise? Is the right to work the "same" for an industrious, ambitious person as for someone who would much prefer to lie around all day living off state benefits? And, of course, is the right to marry someone of the opposite sex the same for a homosexual as for a heterosexual?

In practice, people who say that everyone has the same rights only mean "the same" in respect of aspects that the person making such a statement considers significant. Whereas for them to be meaningfully the same, what should matter is the aspects that the people having the rights consider significant.

[Ray9]

Can one oppose gay rights, but believe in general democratic principles?

One cannot oppose gay rights because there is no right to be gay. Gays practice sodomy and all the states had laws against sodomy. Some heterosexual people practice sodomy but virtually all homosexual men practice sodomy which automatically criminalizes gay men. Since sodomy is an integral part of being a gay male and sodomy is still in many places illegal, all gay men are criminals under the statutes prohibiting sodomy. The only way the states can deal with this problematic constitutional issue is to universally pass laws legalizing sodomy which will decriminalize gay men. The states could then go further by actively promoting and encouraging sodomy for everyone since sodomy has apparently become a safe and honorable pracitice in post modern uber-leftist society.

It's unfortunate that some people are born with abnormal urges but that does not entitle them to band together with others similarly afflicted and be recognized as a political faction endowed with a special "behavior" right. The Constitution was never designed to accomodate such an absurdity. Some people have destructive gambling habits. Are we now to endow the gamblers with special rights?

People with a sick attraction for the same sex have all the rights the rest of us do. They just want more rights.