Impeach the Bastard

chcr said:
If you think people who are merely openly homosexual have not been discriminated against, that's your business. I've seen it happen.
Click to expand...


I never implied that there was no discrimination. I said that being 'in your face' about it was not a good idea. Let's get one thing clear...There is a difference between being openly gay and being flaming. There is also a difference between being sexually active and promiscuous. There is even a difference between being atheist and agnostic. ;) What I'm saying is this. There are some things about your life that are public, and some things that are private. The private aspects of your life should have no bearing on your public aspects unless those private aspects are detrimental (healthwise) to yourself or others. I could also care one whit about your religious choice. That ain't my business unless you make it my business. Just as nobody can tell your sexual orientation on sight, nobody can tell your religion, or lack there-of, on sight, either. I'll answer this one more time, and I'll put it in bold so you can see it more clearly...

I have to respect your choices. I do not have to like them.
 
chcr said:
I don't even care if people respect them. :D I do want to be allowed to make them, however.
Click to expand...
That's the whole point, isn't it? If I don't respect your choices, I'm more inclined not to let you make them. ;)
 
I have to respect your choices. I do not have to like them.
Click to expand...




while I like this statement it seems like nobody cares. I mentioned somewhere that people seem to make it their business somehow. nobody is asking anyone to like any of the choices made. hell i hate to say this but you dont have to respect it(tho that makes me seem like a real fuckwad). but if you dotn agree to it dont engage in it but dont stop others from doing it. that is my take
 
freako104 said:
while I like this statement it seems like nobody cares. I mentioned somewhere that people seem to make it their business somehow. nobody is asking anyone to like any of the choices made. hell i hate to say this but you dont have to respect it(tho that makes me seem like a real fuckwad). but if you dotn agree to it dont engage in it but dont stop others from doing it. that is my take
Click to expand...

freako...That's what that statement means... ;)
 
i know but i was expressing my take. and I did say you dont have to respect others life choices. but tolerate them thats all I ask. even if you dont agree wiht it
 
freako104 said:
i know but i was expressing my take. and I did say you dont have to respect others life choices. but tolerate them thats all I ask. even if you dont agree wiht it
Click to expand...

Respect and tolerance usually go hand in hand. The opposite is also true...example...

I don't like broccoli. You know I don't like broccoli, but you think it's just great. You invite me to dinner, and you serve me broccoli. Maybe you did it on purpose, and maybe not, but I may see it as an insult. In my mind, you are being intolerant to my feelings. In my mind you do not respect my likes and dislikes. This is, admittedly, a crude example, but it's the best I can come up with 'off the cuff'.
 
Aftera few days of thinking up the appropraite comparrison, I've found it:

To all of you who think the Mayor of San Francisco is doing his duty as an American citizen & Californian, I would like to propose an alternate scenario, one that leans towards the Republican side & see if you still aggree.

Mayor X hates has decided it's his civic duty to end an injustice, so he has ordered the City Police to barricade the doors of all abortion clinics in his fair city.

Arguments?
 
I only buy this argument if I accept that a fetus is having its legal and civil rights impinged. Since I do not believe a fetus has any rights, it doesn't work for me.
 
Ms Ann Thrope said:
I only buy this argument if I accept that a fetus is having its legal and civil rights impinged. Since I do not believe a fetus has any rights, it doesn't work for me.
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter what you think.
civil disobedience is an acceptable way to protest unjust laws
Click to expand...

Mayor X finds allowing abortions unjust same as Mayor Gavin Newsom finds homosexual marriage bans unjust.
 
In my opinion, the homosexual marriage ban is discriminating against a group of individuals. I don't see any discrimination taking place by allowing abortions to be performed, unless that is, you believe the fetus is being denied its rights. I don't happen to think fetuses have any rights, so I don't see the discrimination.
 
Gonz said:
Doesn't matter what you think.

Mayor X finds allowing abortions unjust same as Mayor Gavin Newsom finds homosexual marriage bans unjust.
Click to expand...
 
Gonz said:
So? what did chcr write? let me go look...

ahhhh, yes, here it is
Click to expand...


there is a difference though Gonz. in your scenario the mother is having her rights taken away. In the case of teh law about homosexuals it is the oppposite. they already are having their rghts taken away. the mayor wants them to have the right. in your case he would be taking the mothers right. the real life scenario he is trying to say they have rights.
 
Gonz said:
Doesn't matter what you think.
Click to expand...

This is true. I'm merely offering my opinion which has no bearing on what the courts will decide. It's just so much hot air lost in the ether that is OTC. :shrug:

gonz said:
Mayor X finds allowing abortions unjust same as Mayor Gavin Newsom finds homosexual marriage bans unjust.
Click to expand...

The former is anti-choice. The latter is trying to remove gov't sponsored discrimination against homosexuals. I still don't see the parallels. Just the fact that they are both fighting something they believe to be unjust? Not enough to be a good comparison. Palestinians feel the occupation of their former territories to be unjust. Would you lump them in the same category as Mayors X and Newsom? :confused:
 
Ah, good dinner.

I'm amazed. Truly amazed. California gave us all a scenario & I give you a scenario where two men are breaking the law & you can't see where they are equally wrong?
 
Glad you enjoyed your meal, Gonz.

No, I don't see "equally" wrong -- not everyone who breaks the law is wrong, Gonz, especially if it's a bad law. :shrug:

Now, I suppose there are those who believe the right to an abortion is a bad law... but I don't buy into that. One law is discriminating against the rights of certain individuals (homosexuals). The other law grants a woman to do as she will with her own body. I honestly don't feel the two compare. Plenty of laws out there people don't agree with: liquor sales on Sundays, the freedom to burn the flag, restrictions on watering your lawn, legalized gambling in casinos, etc. Just because someone might break a law they don't agree with doesn't mean they are equivalent to someone attempting to remove a discriminatory law. In my mind, anyway. :shrug:
 
Natalie said:
not everyone who breaks the law is wrong
Click to expand...

Please tell me you didn't mean that.

If you did mean it, who makes up the rules on breaking the law? I'd say Bush would make a good law breaking okayer.
 
Not everyone who breaks the law is wrong. That is, they may be committing an illegal act but they are doing the "right thing" according to their moral code. That would be "their" moral code, not the State's, not some deity's, but their own moral code.

I may or may not share their beliefs, so I may or may not perceive what they are doing as "wrong."

When I say "wrong" I'm not implying the legality or otherwise of their actions, only whether or not that individual is being true to their moral position and I am also stating my own moral position relative to their's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top