"It isn't me or anyone saying women have the same rights as a man. Women are humans and do have the same rights as individuals as any man. That is a standard agreed upon human right and me saying women have rights or not has little to do with the fact of women's rights existing."
A standard in most of North America, and only in the last ~100 years. If you knew anything at all about other cultures you would know that this is a cultural opinion. You can think that this is the absolute truth, you can call everyone who disagrees a stupid barbarian, but far far far far far more people over the history of the world have disagreeable with that they have agreed to it. You are a tiny minority, and if we are using Democratic means instead of force then that is a provably wrong statesman (even just in our own time it would probably lose).
And like Democracy far too many people are enamoured by Science and completely shut off their minds because Science cannot be wrong. "A guy in a lab coat said it, and mentioned something about a study, this is obviously the absolute and proven truth."
"The law does not define what is inherent in humanity." But what does then? You cannot just say they are inherent and then seem to imply that you mean that rights are about perfect equality based on your own cultural based opinions.
The idea of rights is too complicated and based on opinions to really get us anywhere. What I am saying is that the only practical thing everyone should be able to agree on is that the only real guarantee is a guarantee backed by force.
You can say, that women have the exact same right to freedom as any man, but there is no omnipotent god in the sky making sure that "right" is obeyed. There is nothing to be gained by saying all humans have a right to food when millions are starving every day. That is absolute proof that that "right" does not exist, and in fact there would not even be humans on Earth if every living thing had the right to food, shelter, and to be free form being killed and eaten (because evolution could never of occurred).
The strong pray on the weak whenever possible, beings suffer and not because of any particular failing they have, and it is not "evil" per say, it is not "fair", it is life. Confusing the issue with theoretical "rights" just hides the real issues.
Yes, if everyone was required to marry within their gender that would be equal with respect to homosexuals and heterosexuals. Because they would both be following the same set of laws.
But would not that be a personal and cultural thing, and not an absolute. It is only bad for the marriage becasue one or more of the married parties think it is inherently bad to begin with. Or have you see married couples who both like porn and honestly like watching it together, but their marriage still fell apart because of this watching of porn?
Well words are important, and being precise can be a benefit. So while we had no chance at accomplishing anything directly for gay rights in this conversation tree it is possibly that I have convinced someone to argue more precisely on the subject.
Well what are "rights"? The laws make the rights so practically laws = rights. No one has the ability to marry whoever they choose because of laws, so the right to marry whoever you choose does not exist in any practical sense.
I would say the difference is in the specifics. Did they really force whites to not use the black wash-room? If a while man wanted to sit at the back of the bus would be really be imprisoned? And mens and womens bathrooms are separate for legitimate reasons, for one because we have different needs when it comes to toiletry. Also the mens bathroom to a man is equivalent to the womens bathroom for a woman, but the bathrooms for blacks where inferior.
I would agree with the analogy. If whites can only marry whites, and blacks can only marry blacks (for example) it is racist but equal. Similarly to if a man can only marry a woman and the inverse of that statement then with respect to homosexuality and heterosexuality everything is equal but homophobic.
Which is not to say that anti-black/minority laws of the past where equal. most of them where not and were about two separate laws for two separate races.
Classical music has to be loud, at least sometimes. What makes it difference is that is equality loud and quiet. The classical song writers understood the significance and beauty of a whisper as much as that of the bang of the cannon. Modern music is the exact opposite, it is 1 volume (loud).
And considering that you where alive, let alone going to concerts in the 60s you are orders of magnitude older then I am. Good taste is ageless.
Well I have never listened to a single opera. I respect the dedication to improving a skill and professionals who strive to perfect a skill. And I understand that to be a good singer you need to have control of your voice.
"You're specifically denying someone the opportunity to do something they want because it would detrimentally affect another person and society as a whole. Is that correct?" I am not. Personally, I am an anarchist and believe that anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want. I would not say that murder is 100% bad 100% of the time. Marry a goat for all I care, but I would still kick your ass if I thought that you where making that goat uncomfortable.
And I would say I am not redefining the word, you are. Equality means =ness, 2=2, A=A. We share the same set of laws with the homosexuals. that is equal with regard to homosexuals and heterosexuals. you could look at it from a skewed angle and say they cannot marry who they love, but the law is not about that. or you could say that it is about the inequity between women and men.
The laws or must countries do not say anything about love. I can marry any woman. If I happen to love a fish then I am out of luck. If you want to see more of my reasoning then explore this comment tree more, I have already gone into great detail a lot of times (and I think made my opponents agree with me) and I do not want to do it again.
But their already is equality, and it is the equality that is causing the discrimination.
"If laws catagorize people based on physical characteristics that they have no control over (like gender), there is no equality." That's great, so you are saying that the inequality does not come to be between homosexuals and hetros but between men and women. We (in a way) have two laws, men can marry women and women can marry men. Make those two laws equal and you have a situation where you can have both equality and fairness. That is a very interesting way of looking at it. I am not sure if it invalidates everything I was saying or only goes to show that any problem can be looked at as a set of completely different problems depending on how you approach it.
But I would not say that the only way safe way to run a society is to strive for equality. If you have equality then you do not have a group of people you can take advantage of. If the US considered all people in the world equal then it could not pillage the rest of the world of its resources and treat non citizens as not worthy of life (and it would lose most of its power).
NO they want the laws changed. And not to "Any one/thing that a human loves he/she can marry it/him/her". That want the laws changed to "Any human can marry any other human, except people who are related too closely or unless you are already married or one of you are below a certain age."
Well it would depend on the country you looked at. What we are certainly talking about, north america, I think that at least in general you are right. I am sure there where more then a few specific cases where they could not just give women the same rights and have it make sense, but in general the idea was equality.
Of course the general idea of the pro-homosexual movement is also equality.
"why on earth should the laws not be expanded?" Well I could come up with a lot of different arguments based on a lot of different starting points. 1)The point of laws are not really to create the maximum amount of fairness or happiness. 2)Someone might have the opinion that men are genetically made to fill one role and women another so the laws should enforce that/discourage feminism from actually hurting women (as an anarchist I would have to strongly disagree with laws enforcing this type of stuff, but as someone very much interested in genetics and evolution would say that the idea should not be dismissed as religious bullshit). 3)Just like freeing the slaves hurt slave owners, freeing the women made men lose power.... But if this is still referring to homosexuals, of course the laws should be changed. Even if you do not like homosexuals, having them marry hurts no one. Random thought: I guess we are lucky that religious fundamentalists do not believe in evolution, or they would be trying to stop them from reproducing. But then the best way to do that might be to allow them to marry and make adoption easy, so I guess it might be a win-win.
I have always suspected some autism like thing. "equality and fairness are inexorably linked." That touches on the exact point I was trying to make (I think homosexuality is too emotional a subject for most people to get the hidden insight in my post). I would way equality and fairness are not linked. In this case it is our imposing of equality where there is difference that is the problem. That and I just had to point out what I considered as something technically wrong, even if it was right in style and generalities.
"Just because something is fact does not make it right." I agree with you 100%, and that was pretty much the point of my post. Equal laws do not equal fair laws.
The problem is not that we are imposing inequality onto homosexuals but that we are imposing equality where there needs to be differences. A set of laws that work for a society of heterosexuals do not necessarily work for a group of homosexuals. It is not that we are forcing them to go to different schools and ride in the backs of buses but that we are imposing our way of living onto them.
Of course the answer is not to come of with two sets of laws, but to realize that our laws reflect our culture and not absolute morality, and in many cases need to be widened and loosened to allow the differences of humanity to flourish.
Slashdot Mirror
"It isn't me or anyone saying women have the same rights as a man. Women are humans and do have the same rights as individuals as any man. That is a standard agreed upon human right and me saying women have rights or not has little to do with the fact of women's rights existing."
A standard in most of North America, and only in the last ~100 years. If you knew anything at all about other cultures you would know that this is a cultural opinion. You can think that this is the absolute truth, you can call everyone who disagrees a stupid barbarian, but far far far far far more people over the history of the world have disagreeable with that they have agreed to it. You are a tiny minority, and if we are using Democratic means instead of force then that is a provably wrong statesman (even just in our own time it would probably lose).
I am not against gay marriage, when did I ever say that.
I am 100% for gay marriage.
I am simply against nonsensical use of the English language.
And like Democracy far too many people are enamoured by Science and completely shut off their minds because Science cannot be wrong.
"A guy in a lab coat said it, and mentioned something about a study, this is obviously the absolute and proven truth."
"The law does not define what is inherent in humanity."
But what does then? You cannot just say they are inherent and then seem to imply that you mean that rights are about perfect equality based on your own cultural based opinions.
The idea of rights is too complicated and based on opinions to really get us anywhere.
What I am saying is that the only practical thing everyone should be able to agree on is that the only real guarantee is a guarantee backed by force.
You can say, that women have the exact same right to freedom as any man, but there is no omnipotent god in the sky making sure that "right" is obeyed. There is nothing to be gained by saying all humans have a right to food when millions are starving every day. That is absolute proof that that "right" does not exist, and in fact there would not even be humans on Earth if every living thing had the right to food, shelter, and to be free form being killed and eaten (because evolution could never of occurred).
The strong pray on the weak whenever possible, beings suffer and not because of any particular failing they have, and it is not "evil" per say, it is not "fair", it is life. Confusing the issue with theoretical "rights" just hides the real issues.
Protestantism is not a culture, but a religion (specifically a offshoot of Catholicism)...
Religion permeates culture, but is still a religion.
Yes, if everyone was required to marry within their gender that would be equal with respect to homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Because they would both be following the same set of laws.
You are right, looked it up a Libertarian is ~= Anarchist.
But that is not all all what we mean when we say liberal in Canada.
Yes because the loudness war (the movement that reduced the complexity of music by making it all 1 volume level) is provably a good thing?
You are confusing Libertarianism with Anarchism.
But would not that be a personal and cultural thing, and not an absolute. It is only bad for the marriage becasue one or more of the married parties think it is inherently bad to begin with.
Or have you see married couples who both like porn and honestly like watching it together, but their marriage still fell apart because of this watching of porn?
Women do not have that standing up toilet thing, well at least I do not think they do.
Well words are important, and being precise can be a benefit. So while we had no chance at accomplishing anything directly for gay rights in this conversation tree it is possibly that I have convinced someone to argue more precisely on the subject.
Well what are "rights"? The laws make the rights so practically laws = rights. No one has the ability to marry whoever they choose because of laws, so the right to marry whoever you choose does not exist in any practical sense.
There is nothing wrong with loudness in its place. I never said anything over X db is bad.
I would say the difference is in the specifics. Did they really force whites to not use the black wash-room? If a while man wanted to sit at the back of the bus would be really be imprisoned?
And mens and womens bathrooms are separate for legitimate reasons, for one because we have different needs when it comes to toiletry.
Also the mens bathroom to a man is equivalent to the womens bathroom for a woman, but the bathrooms for blacks where inferior.
I would agree with the analogy. If whites can only marry whites, and blacks can only marry blacks (for example) it is racist but equal.
Similarly to if a man can only marry a woman and the inverse of that statement then with respect to homosexuality and heterosexuality everything is equal but homophobic.
Which is not to say that anti-black/minority laws of the past where equal. most of them where not and were about two separate laws for two separate races.
Classical music has to be loud, at least sometimes. What makes it difference is that is equality loud and quiet. The classical song writers understood the significance and beauty of a whisper as much as that of the bang of the cannon. Modern music is the exact opposite, it is 1 volume (loud).
And considering that you where alive, let alone going to concerts in the 60s you are orders of magnitude older then I am. Good taste is ageless.
Well I have never listened to a single opera. I respect the dedication to improving a skill and professionals who strive to perfect a skill. And I understand that to be a good singer you need to have control of your voice.
"You're specifically denying someone the opportunity to do something they want because it would detrimentally affect another person and society as a whole. Is that correct?"
I am not. Personally, I am an anarchist and believe that anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want. I would not say that murder is 100% bad 100% of the time. Marry a goat for all I care, but I would still kick your ass if I thought that you where making that goat uncomfortable.
And I would say I am not redefining the word, you are. Equality means =ness, 2=2, A=A.
We share the same set of laws with the homosexuals. that is equal with regard to homosexuals and heterosexuals.
you could look at it from a skewed angle and say they cannot marry who they love, but the law is not about that. or you could say that it is about the inequity between women and men.
The laws or must countries do not say anything about love. I can marry any woman. If I happen to love a fish then I am out of luck.
If you want to see more of my reasoning then explore this comment tree more, I have already gone into great detail a lot of times (and I think made my opponents agree with me) and I do not want to do it again.
But their already is equality, and it is the equality that is causing the discrimination.
"If laws catagorize people based on physical characteristics that they have no control over (like gender), there is no equality."
That's great, so you are saying that the inequality does not come to be between homosexuals and hetros but between men and women. We (in a way) have two laws, men can marry women and women can marry men. Make those two laws equal and you have a situation where you can have both equality and fairness.
That is a very interesting way of looking at it. I am not sure if it invalidates everything I was saying or only goes to show that any problem can be looked at as a set of completely different problems depending on how you approach it.
But I would not say that the only way safe way to run a society is to strive for equality. If you have equality then you do not have a group of people you can take advantage of. If the US considered all people in the world equal then it could not pillage the rest of the world of its resources and treat non citizens as not worthy of life (and it would lose most of its power).
NO they want the laws changed. And not to "Any one/thing that a human loves he/she can marry it/him/her".
That want the laws changed to "Any human can marry any other human, except people who are related too closely or unless you are already married or one of you are below a certain age."
Well it would depend on the country you looked at. What we are certainly talking about, north america, I think that at least in general you are right. I am sure there where more then a few specific cases where they could not just give women the same rights and have it make sense, but in general the idea was equality.
Of course the general idea of the pro-homosexual movement is also equality.
"why on earth should the laws not be expanded?" Well I could come up with a lot of different arguments based on a lot of different starting points. ...
1)The point of laws are not really to create the maximum amount of fairness or happiness.
2)Someone might have the opinion that men are genetically made to fill one role and women another so the laws should enforce that/discourage feminism from actually hurting women (as an anarchist I would have to strongly disagree with laws enforcing this type of stuff, but as someone very much interested in genetics and evolution would say that the idea should not be dismissed as religious bullshit).
3)Just like freeing the slaves hurt slave owners, freeing the women made men lose power.
But if this is still referring to homosexuals, of course the laws should be changed. Even if you do not like homosexuals, having them marry hurts no one.
Random thought: I guess we are lucky that religious fundamentalists do not believe in evolution, or they would be trying to stop them from reproducing. But then the best way to do that might be to allow them to marry and make adoption easy, so I guess it might be a win-win.
I have always suspected some autism like thing.
"equality and fairness are inexorably linked."
That touches on the exact point I was trying to make (I think homosexuality is too emotional a subject for most people to get the hidden insight in my post).
I would way equality and fairness are not linked. In this case it is our imposing of equality where there is difference that is the problem.
That and I just had to point out what I considered as something technically wrong, even if it was right in style and generalities.
Not OK, not fair, not what should be, simply that that situation is equal when you consider the specific text of the laws and rights.
"Just because something is fact does not make it right."
I agree with you 100%, and that was pretty much the point of my post.
Equal laws do not equal fair laws.
The problem is not that we are imposing inequality onto homosexuals but that we are imposing equality where there needs to be differences. A set of laws that work for a society of heterosexuals do not necessarily work for a group of homosexuals.
It is not that we are forcing them to go to different schools and ride in the backs of buses but that we are imposing our way of living onto them.
Of course the answer is not to come of with two sets of laws, but to realize that our laws reflect our culture and not absolute morality, and in many cases need to be widened and loosened to allow the differences of humanity to flourish.