How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

sedan said:
Do you believe people should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex?
Click to expand...

I don't believe that we have the right to define their relationships through government. It isn't what they should be "allowed", it is where the limits on the government belong. The government has no place to attempt social engineering programs based on the mores of the majority, there's this thing called the first amendment that is supposed to stop them from doing that. Basically I wouldn't say the "government should allow them to do this" I would say "government has no place in this" so long as all participants are willing adults with full knowledge of the situation and they aren't sacrificing the rights of others the government has no place.
 
Damocles said:
I don't believe that we have the right to define their relationships through government. It isn't what they should be "allowed", it is where the limits on the government belong. The government has no place to attempt social engineering programs based on the mores of the majority, there's this thing called the first amendment that is supposed to stop them from doing that. Basically I wouldn't say the "government should allow them to do this" I would say "government has no place in this" so long as all participants are willing adults with full knowledge of the situation and they aren't sacrificing the rights of others the government has no place.
Click to expand...

A reasonable answer!
 
sedan said:
Do you believe people should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex?

EDIT: I'm not asking this to be a dick. I genuinely would like to know: in this ideal society of yours where we all just treat each other like people, are gays allowed to get married?
Click to expand...

Which is it? Do you want people of the same sex to be able to marry or is it just the "gays allowed to get married" in addition to the hetrosexual couples who are now recognized as married under the law?
 
sedan said:
Do you believe people should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex?

EDIT: I'm not asking this to be a dick. I genuinely would like to know: in this ideal society of yours where we all just treat each other like people, are gays allowed to get married?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what constitutes an 'ideal' society. My ideal and yours are, most probably, quite different but with sufficient things in common to make them recognisable as consisting of social interactions between fellow humans.

As far as I am aware this forum is called 'Just Plain Politics' therefore the question of who should be 'allowed' (by whom, by the way) to get married needs no answer.However I understand that for many Americans these little 'manufactured' prejudices serve as a substitute for intelligent discourse. I have answered your question.
 
Lowaicue said:
I have no idea what constitutes an 'ideal' society.
Click to expand...

Clearly, you have some idea of what constitutes an ideal society. To wit, "as long as we talk about 'gay rights' there will be none. We don't talk about 'blond rights' or 'left handed' rights or 'footballers' rights or 'tall peoples' rights because no one denies them a place in society. As long as we talk of 'gay rights' gay people will be labelled as different. Sod gay rights. Can't we just be people... "

These statements presuppose a possible future where we are all 'just people'.

What I want to know is, in this possible future where we are all 'just people', can two gay men (for example) marry each other?

Lowaicue said:
My ideal and yours are, most probably, quite different but with sufficient things in common to make them recognisable as consisting of social interactions between fellow humans.

As far as I am aware this forum is called 'Just Plain Politics' therefore the question of who should be 'allowed' (by whom, by the way) to get married needs no answer.However I understand that for many Americans these little 'manufactured' prejudices serve as a substitute for intelligent discourse. I have answered your question.
Click to expand...

You have refused (several times now) to answer a simple yes or no question.

Here, I'll repeat it for you one last time: Do you believe people should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex?

Please include a 'yes' or a 'no' in your response, thanks.
 
sedan said:
Clearly, you have some idea of what constitutes an ideal society. To wit, "as long as we talk about 'gay rights' there will be none. We don't talk about 'blond rights' or 'left handed' rights or 'footballers' rights or 'tall peoples' rights because no one denies them a place in society. As long as we talk of 'gay rights' gay people will be labelled as different. Sod gay rights. Can't we just be people... "

These statements presuppose a possible future where we are all 'just people'.

What I want to know is, in this possible future where we are all 'just people', can two gay men (for example) marry each other?



You have refused (several times now) to answer a simple yes or no question.

Here, I'll repeat it for you one last time: Do you believe people should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex?

Please include a 'yes' or a 'no' in your response, thanks.
Click to expand...

If you want me to give a 'yes' or 'no' then please change your question from the passive to the active and let us know who you think the act-or should be.
 
Lowaicue said:
If you want me to give a 'yes' or 'no' then please change your question from the passive to the active and let us know who you think the act-or should be.
Click to expand...

I only want to know whether you think gay people should be able to get married to each other or not.

If you don't want to answer the question, that's fine.
 
sedan said:
I only want to know whether you think gay people should be able to get married to each other or not.

If you don't want to answer the question, that's fine.
Click to expand...

But you start with the assumption that your question has relevance. It does not. The fact that you ask it suggests that you have biases that you wish confirmed or denied. They are your biases, not mine. You may answer your own question for it matters only to you. My opinion on homosexuals, short people, the speed of light or the existence of the Higgs Boson are for me to express wherever and whenever I wish, not when requested by someone with their own agenda.
If I wish to engage with you or anyone over a particular point then I will. If I do not I will not.
That, my friend is freedom. As opposed to the American view that freedom should be spelled: g - u - n.
 
Lowaicue said:
But you start with the assumption that your question has relevance. It does not. The fact that you ask it suggests that you have biases that you wish confirmed or denied. They are your biases, not mine. You may answer your own question for it matters only to you. My opinion on homosexuals, short people, the speed of light or the existence of the Higgs Boson are for me to express wherever and whenever I wish, not when requested by someone with their own agenda.
If I wish to engage with you or anyone over a particular point then I will. If I do not I will not.
That, my friend is freedom. As opposed to the American view that freedom should be spelled: g - u - n.
Click to expand...

careful about bad mouthing our guns, we may decide to invade your country to bring the american way of life to you with our guns...

now having had a bit of fun, do you support marriage of two or more adult people regardless of gender
 
Lowaicue said:
But you start with the assumption that your question has relevance. It does not. The fact that you ask it suggests that you have biases that you wish confirmed or denied. They are your biases, not mine. You may answer your own question for it matters only to you. My opinion on homosexuals, short people, the speed of light or the existence of the Higgs Boson are for me to express wherever and whenever I wish, not when requested by someone with their own agenda.
If I wish to engage with you or anyone over a particular point then I will. If I do not I will not.
That, my friend is freedom. As opposed to the American view that freedom should be spelled: g - u - n.
Click to expand...

Like I said, if you don't want to answer the question that's fine.
 
Don Quixote said:
careful about bad mouthing our guns, we may decide to invade your country to bring the american way of life to you with our guns...

now having had a bit of fun, do you support marriage of two or more adult people regardless of gender
Click to expand...

All joking aside there was a time when I would defend marriage as one of the cornerstones of society, but things change. Millions now decide not to get married and I do not see that as being a cause of our basic ills. Were I to start again I might well decide not to marry a partner. Social pressures have changed. We no longer refer to people 'living in sin' and that must be good.
 
Lowaicue said:
All joking aside there was a time when I would defend marriage as one of the cornerstones of society, but things change. Millions now decide not to get married and I do not see that as being a cause of our basic ills. Were I to start again I might well decide not to marry a partner. Social pressures have changed. We no longer refer to people 'living in sin' and that must be good.
Click to expand...

Do you see as "good", more children born to single mothers with higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquincy, drug and alchohol abuse, teen pregnancy and criminal convictions as an adult?
 
dixon76710 said:
Do you see as "good", more children born to single mothers with higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquincy, drug and alchohol abuse, teen pregnancy and criminal convictions as an adult?
Click to expand...

Many single parent families achieve extraordinary success. Many children of single parents go on to lead worthwhile lives. The main problem, I think, is not single parenting, but inadequate funding. Given the money and the help required a good mother is still a good mother. Some of the most famous marriages have produced failures as offspring. So, no, I do not think poverty or juvenile delinquency or drug and alcohol abuse are 'good', but I very much doubt if there is a provable cause and effect with unmarried couples or single mums (or Dads).
Boxes are dangerous things. When you put people in them it is you who are wrong not them. My personal preference is for what my generation called 'normal' relationships where the man supplied the money and the woman looked after the home. Few people nowadays would agree with that. They are not wrong any more than we were wrong. After all it is their (your?) world now.
 
Lowaicue said:
Many single parent families achieve extraordinary success. Many children of single parents go on to lead worthwhile lives. The main problem, I think, is not single parenting, but inadequate funding. Given the money and the help required a good mother is still a good mother. Some of the most famous marriages have produced failures as offspring. So, no, I do not think poverty or juvenile delinquency or drug and alcohol abuse are 'good', but I very much doubt if there is a provable cause and effect with unmarried couples or single mums (or Dads).
Boxes are dangerous things. When you put people in them it is you who are wrong not them.
Click to expand...

You are confused and not grasping the meaning of "higher rates". And you who presumed that correlation implies causation.

Lowaicue said:
My personal preference is for what my generation called 'normal' relationships where the man supplied the money and the woman looked after the home. Few people nowadays would agree with that. They are not wrong any more than we were wrong. After all it is their (your?) world now.
Click to expand...

Men who live with their children on average spend more of their income on their children than men who do not live with their children. Children born to their married, mother and father, are more likely to live with their father, when compared to children born to unmarried couples and therefore more likely to have a father who supplies more of the money.
 
Last edited:
dixon76710 said:
You are confused and not grasping the meaning of "higher rates". And you who presumed that correlation implies causation.



Men who live with their children on average spend more of their income on their children than men who do not live with their children. Children born to their married, mother and father, are more likely to live with their father, when compared to children born to unmarried couples and therefore more likely to have a father who supplies more of the money.
Click to expand...
If I am confused it is because you lack the ability to form an intelligent question.
I cannot be bothered with this any more. It is Sunday, my lunch will be on the table shortly (I hope) prepared by my conventional wife for her conventional husband and this afternoon we will sit and watch from our window, a local - and not very good - gymkhana. The horses will be cared for and canter and trot and jump and whinny like any of their breed. Their young owners will respect them for what they are and, Sunday or no Sunday, it is highly unlikely that I, or anyone, will be asked to pray for any of them.
Good day to you, sir.
 
Lowaicue said:
If I am confused it is because you lack the ability to form an intelligent question.
Click to expand...

No, like I said, your confusion is in the meaning of "higher rates". And seemingly unable to realize that higher rates of poverty result in "inadequate funding"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top