Do complete Lefties and Greenies get on your nerves? (1 Viewer)

[bshoc]

How about "human rights", and we ignore who people are bumping uglies with? That's my preference.

These "rights" ofcourse being universal with no though put into who actually makes the effort and has the power to maintain them correct?

Believe me, people care about their own rights much more than those others, thats a fact of life, theres nothing wrong with straight white males caring about the rights of only straight white males, and likewise for all other people, women, gays etc. caring mostly about theirs, which they do. Power and composition will then sort out which rights exist beyond paper and which do not.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Believe me, people care about their own rights much more than those others, thats a fact of life, theres nothing wrong with straight white males caring about the rights of only straight white males

The first statement is true, however it doesn't necessarily lead to the second statement. Just because you care about your rights 'much more' than those of others doesn't mean it's normal or even psychologically healthy to only care about rights pertaining to yourself... most of us have some empathy.

Power and composition will then sort out which rights exist beyond paper and which do not.

I agree that might is right, however due to empathy/understanding etc those that are in power can be swayed by the cause of those with very little. Not to belittle the part of the 'weaker' powerbrokers in these struggles but a big part of the reason why the women's movement, the black movement and now the gay movement have been so successful is because they've been able to really appeal to those beyond who will immediately benefit by granting their rights.

 

[littlewing69]

Believe me, people care about their own rights much more than those others, thats a fact of life, theres nothing wrong with straight white males caring about the rights of only straight white males, and likewise for all other people, women, gays etc. caring mostly about theirs, which they do. Power and composition will then sort out which rights exist beyond paper and which do not.

What are you trying to say here? All I got:

1.) It's fine if people don't care about the rights of other groups
2.) Might is right.


Huh?

 

[The Brucemaster]

Bshoc if a person's sexual orientation is an irrelevant consideration in their rights then what is it that denies homosexuals certain rights that are given to heterosexuals?

 

[bshoc]

Bshoc if a person's sexual orientation is an irrelevant consideration in their rights then what is it that denies homosexuals certain rights that are given to heterosexuals?

Denial or lack of recognition? There is a difference here.

Every law (or lack of thereof) cannot be compared to any other given the fact that each addresses a unique subject, that said the law that "denies" homosexuals "equal rights" (in your view anyway - not in mine) is similar to the one that denies you the right to use female public toilets and so forth. That and lack of need and reason is enough to kill off even the most "well intentioned" law proposal.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Denial or lack of recognition? There is a difference here.

Every law (or lack of thereof) cannot be compared to any other given the fact that each addresses a unique subject, that said the law that "denies" homosexuals "equal rights" (in your view anyway - not in mine) is similar to the one that denies you the right to use female public toilets and so forth. That and lack of need and reason is enough to kill off even the most "well intentioned" law proposal.

Actually the law is entirely different because, as you said, a person's sexual orientation is irrelevant when considering their rights, whereas the use of toilets has to take in to account physical differences.

I also don't see the difference between denial and lack of recognition, they are fundamentally the same thing, especially in regards to the rights of homosexuals. The fact is that homosexuals are not entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals and, seeing as sexuality is not a relevant consideration in this regard, there seems to be no justification for this except perhaps a verse from the Bible.

 

[bshoc]

Actually the law is entirely different because, as you said, a person's sexual orientation is irrelevant when considering their rights, whereas the use of toilets has to take in to account physical differences.

So do laws in terms of homosexuals, in childbearing among other things.

I also don't see the difference between denial and lack of recognition, they are fundamentally the same thing, especially in regards to the rights of homosexuals. The fact is that homosexuals are not entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals and, seeing as sexuality is not a relevant consideration in this regard, there seems to be no justification for this except perhaps a verse from the Bible.

Name one thing homosexuals cannot do than hetrosexuals can.

 

[goony]

I really hate greenies sometimes, but i don't really like family first at all either.

But in the end we need both sides you know. Without the nationalistic guys on the right going to/supporting war, upholding conservative values we'd look like a bunch of immoral/unethical pussies. On the other hand, if we don't have the greenies protesting the war, protecting worker's rights and raising environmental awareness, we'd look like a bunch of warmongering assholes. >_>

 

[The Brucemaster]

So do laws in terms of homosexuals, in childbearing among other things.

Yes exactly, because this is a physical difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals. However, as you said, the issue of sexuality is not a consideration when it comes to rights and you still haven't shown me why homosexuals should not experience the same rights as do heterosexuals.

Name one thing homosexuals cannot do than hetrosexuals can.

I think you mean "that heterosexuals can" so I'll work with that assumption.

Homsexuals cannot get married, which means they do not receive the numerous financial and legal benefits/rights (depending on what you're talking about) that heterosexuals do.

The age of consent for homosexuals is two years older than it is for heterosexuals.

In Victoria, at least, homsexual couples cannot adopt, nor can they recive IVF or artificial insemination.

That should do for starters...

 

[katie_tully]

Clearly bshoc is insane.

 

[katie_tully]

You're basing your views on laws that were made well before it was acceptable to admit ones homosexuality. Therefore in a sense, the laws are quite out dated.

I don't believe sexual orientation is enough of a factor to deny somebody the ability to do something so simple as to 'get married'. If they want to get married, let them get married. It'll never be accepted by the church, but I don't see why a 'civil' union should be outlawed. Personally I can't see a reason as to why you'd want to be married by a church that condemns your relationship as sinful, but meh.
So long as they then don't try and jump the adoption or IVF que, I don't care.

 

[Anthonygeorgiou]

What can I say, but thankyou all for a logical discussion amongst people of intelligence. My post was designed to see what people thought of the extreme left, but don't get me wrong it was an example, just like extreme conservatives and those of the extreme right piss me off just as equally. Its good to see we can actually discuss issues logically and reason.

Unlike some on these forums, who can't hack me (and I admit I can be annoying), and rather than sign off or just bite the tongue, have posted that i was a "c***" and an "annoying noob." LOL. Thanks again to those who responded without insults.

 

[katie_tully]

You're a twat.
Swish.

 

[bshoc]

You're basing your views on laws that were made well before it was acceptable to admit ones homosexuality. Therefore in a sense, the laws are quite out dated.

I don't believe sexual orientation is enough of a factor to deny somebody the ability to do something so simple as to 'get married'. If they want to get married, let them get married. It'll never be accepted by the church, but I don't see why a 'civil' union should be outlawed. Personally I can't see a reason as to why you'd want to be married by a church that condemns your relationship as sinful, but meh.
So long as they then don't try and jump the adoption or IVF que, I don't care.

Marriage says "man and woman"

It doesent say anything about sexual oreintation - can a flamer and lesbian get married? Ofcourse - therefore there is no discrimination.

 

[katie_tully]

Marriage in the Bible says man and woman. It cannot be rewritten. Under the law it may currently say 'man and woman', but there is no reason why the law cannot be changed to fit with societies growing tolerance of same sex unions. I cannot see why they can't be married under the state.

 

[_dhj_]

I hate people who get frustrated by opinions they regard as "extreme". The fact that something is extreme doesn't make it automatically wrong, nor is a "moderate" view formed by compromise always correct.

 

[katie_tully]

I hate people who get frustrated by opinions they regard as "extreme". The fact that something is extreme doesn't make it automatically wrong.

I'm quite sure that strapping a bomb to yourself and killing others in the process is extreme and 'wrong'.

 

[bshoc]

Marriage in the Bible says man and woman. It cannot be rewritten. Under the law it may currently say 'man and woman', but there is no reason why the law cannot be changed to fit with societies growing tolerance of same sex unions. I cannot see why they can't be married under the state.

Because marriage is not simply the shallow recognition of love by the state, if it were I would be all for it, marriage has deeper historical, psychological and natural law meaning than this.

 

[bshoc]

I'm quite sure that strapping a bomb to yourself and killing others in the process is extreme and 'wrong'.

I'm pretty sure dhj covered that ...

 

[katie_tully]

Because marriage is not simply the shallow recognition of love by the state, if it were I would be all for it, marriage has deeper historical, psychological and natural law meaning than this.

Again pertaining to the Bible which is no longer the only authority to grant marriage, nor should it be. What may those 'historical, psychological and natural law' meanings be?