Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
I think religion can be very important for some people. It gives them reassurance in dark times, and something to thank in the good times. I am not a religious person however. I find comfort in science, it's findings and questions, it's willingness to explore, to discover, to admit it's own shortcomings and ability to revise according to the facts it learns along the way.
It is not that I am an atheist. I do NOT know if there is a God, Goddess or Gods. I simply know that I am able to distinguish between right and wrong without referring to a holy script or person.
One thing that does discourage me about religion is the people who are fanatical about it. Not just terrorists, though we all have seen the havoc they reek on our societies. I worry about those who go to places of worship on their holy days, seek forgiveness for their transgressions, leave that place ... and low and behold; go out into the new day only to repeat those same 'sins' again and again. My desire to 'do the right thing' does not change according to who is watching me and does not become a part of my life once a week. It is an everyday until I die quest.
I will stick with science and believe that IF there is a higher power; then science is a gift from that power, for us to learn from and adapt our lives accordingly.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: Then let them preserve it amoungst themselves, and leave others out of it. ..."
............I think something called a 'vote' may be needed. You believe in the vote don't you."
I do. But if people are equal a vote on whether some people are more or less equal is a disgusting thing.
Sue wrote: "I think religion can be very important for some people. It gives them reassurance in dark times, and something to thank in the good times. I am not a religious person however. I find comfort in sc..."
Well said Sue, I love your last sentence "I will stick with science and believe that IF there is a higher power; then science is a gift from that power, for us to learn from and adapt our lives accordingly".
Shanna wrote: more or less equal ..."....you are playing with words. Equal rights are voted for.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: more or less equal ..."....you are playing with words. Equal rights are voted for."
Only when they have been systematically and egregiously abrogated.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: Then let them preserve it amoungst themselves, and leave others out of it.
..."
............I think something called a 'vote' may be needed. You believe in the vote don't you."
Mmmm....
That's the thing, isn't it.
Sitting here eating my breakfast and thinking .... But, it's just wrong, denying rights to some. And, it is, in my opinion, obviously.
Then, I started thinking about African-American men and the right to vote and women and the right to vote, their rights being denied in America.
How was that settled? People rising up, fighting for what they believed. Then, ... votes.
On the one hand, I'd like to or would like someone to wave a magic wand and make this right, in an instance. Rights for all.
But, ....
As much as I believe in rights and have fought for the rights of others, would the waving of that wand take away rights? Rights to the democratic process that some governments say they stand on. When do you abdicate your rights to have a say in your government and leave it in the hands of one person or a few people to decide what's best for all people? (Yes, I'm aware American has a representational system of government, often bought and paid for by lobbyists and not the people. Etc.... But, ....) Do you ever abdicate your rights and, frankly, demand that others abdicate theirs, in order to give the one or the few the "right" to decide what's best?
For me, it's easy to say all people should have rights. I hold that to be a fundamental truth.
What's not as easy? Thinking about and deciding how that should happen. Do you ever go against what you hold to be true in order to protect someone or to protect the few? Homosexuals are denied rights. Snap. Make it so they have rights. Period. That's more important than the rights of the majority, to take part in government and vote.
Ouch.... Now, it becomes sticky.
Sort of like .... (Please note, ... I said sort of ...)
The terrorist wants to take the rights of others and take their lives and has information that would save those people. Do you take his rights and water-board him, in order to protect and save the rights of others? Or, do you hold with your values, rights for all, and act accordingly? Do you interrogate the crap out of the Boston bomber for 48 hours, without the right to Miranda? Or, do you waltz into the hospital room after 16 hours with a judge and an Assistant United States Attorney in order to give him his rights and read Miranda?
Now, ... the discussion becomes sticky ... painful ... and not that easy.
Anyone want to discuss that?
..."
............I think something called a 'vote' may be needed. You believe in the vote don't you."
Mmmm....
That's the thing, isn't it.
Sitting here eating my breakfast and thinking .... But, it's just wrong, denying rights to some. And, it is, in my opinion, obviously.
Then, I started thinking about African-American men and the right to vote and women and the right to vote, their rights being denied in America.
How was that settled? People rising up, fighting for what they believed. Then, ... votes.
On the one hand, I'd like to or would like someone to wave a magic wand and make this right, in an instance. Rights for all.
But, ....
As much as I believe in rights and have fought for the rights of others, would the waving of that wand take away rights? Rights to the democratic process that some governments say they stand on. When do you abdicate your rights to have a say in your government and leave it in the hands of one person or a few people to decide what's best for all people? (Yes, I'm aware American has a representational system of government, often bought and paid for by lobbyists and not the people. Etc.... But, ....) Do you ever abdicate your rights and, frankly, demand that others abdicate theirs, in order to give the one or the few the "right" to decide what's best?
For me, it's easy to say all people should have rights. I hold that to be a fundamental truth.
What's not as easy? Thinking about and deciding how that should happen. Do you ever go against what you hold to be true in order to protect someone or to protect the few? Homosexuals are denied rights. Snap. Make it so they have rights. Period. That's more important than the rights of the majority, to take part in government and vote.
Ouch.... Now, it becomes sticky.
Sort of like .... (Please note, ... I said sort of ...)
The terrorist wants to take the rights of others and take their lives and has information that would save those people. Do you take his rights and water-board him, in order to protect and save the rights of others? Or, do you hold with your values, rights for all, and act accordingly? Do you interrogate the crap out of the Boston bomber for 48 hours, without the right to Miranda? Or, do you waltz into the hospital room after 16 hours with a judge and an Assistant United States Attorney in order to give him his rights and read Miranda?
Now, ... the discussion becomes sticky ... painful ... and not that easy.
Anyone want to discuss that?
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: Is that your bug bear, that homosexuals in the UK have this civil union, that you can't? Is turn around fair play? "
Incase you didn't see my post to Travis.........10040 just about..."
Why do you think such meddling in other peoples lives is OK? I merely suggest if an individual believes that marriage is between a man and a woman that is the marriage they should have, why do they get a say in the marriage of another?
Shanna wrote:You have not explained how it harms heterosexuals marrying only contended that it does. ."Harm is to strong a word.
Lets do away with the name Australia and call it New Zealand 2.
I don't think this would 'harm' Australia in anyway.
To us in the UK you both sound the same, so it would make it easier for us when we say...
'Hi, you from New Zealand' and you say 'No cobber, Australia'.
Sometimes a word means a lot to a person and to another it may not matter.
Shannon wrote: It did make me think about civil unions here, in the US. What are the differences?.."
Because we are such a small country and you are so big, I can see why your states have their own laws.
How one state will execute you and another won't, gay rights, and I even watched a tv programme where some folks crossed the state line to watch fireworks because their state ban them.
Although we now have Scotland wanting to split from us and go their own way.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote:You have not explained how it harms heterosexuals marrying only contended that it does. ."Harm is to strong a word.
Lets do away with the name Australia and call it New Zealand 2.
..."
That doesn't mean they own the word or it's meaning or the evolution of that meaning. They need to justify their position on more than that, especially as it's not the word but the rights and responsibilities it entails, there are people who want them and are being denied them, for what reason?
After all we no longer trade daughters for livestock (generally speaking) but I bet there were folk complaining about that too when it ended.
As an aside I don't know anyone who actually uses the word cobber you gave me a giggle
cHriS wrote: "How one state will execute you and another won't, gay rights, and I even watched a tv programme where some folks crossed the state line to watch fireworks because their state ban them.
"
Oh, yeah.... I know.
The different states go their different ways. Ummm.... State's rights. The death penalty. Yes. And, of course, you have states that did away with the death penalty, like MA, but the federal government can execute people in those states. And, fireworks. You can buy fireworks in New Hampshire but not in surrounding states. Yes, indeed.
Which, of course, makes these things difficult. Easy for me to say homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals regarding marriage/unions. But, .... Damn. It's also about the ideals we were founded upon and the rights of people to vote regarding the course of their future. At that point, the discussion becomes painful.
"
Oh, yeah.... I know.
The different states go their different ways. Ummm.... State's rights. The death penalty. Yes. And, of course, you have states that did away with the death penalty, like MA, but the federal government can execute people in those states. And, fireworks. You can buy fireworks in New Hampshire but not in surrounding states. Yes, indeed.
Which, of course, makes these things difficult. Easy for me to say homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals regarding marriage/unions. But, .... Damn. It's also about the ideals we were founded upon and the rights of people to vote regarding the course of their future. At that point, the discussion becomes painful.
Chris, I do not understand your argument against gay marriage. You say it's not fair that people ( hetero) who don't want to marry do not receive the same right as those who do?So, the ones who can, but CHOOSE not to, by their own choice mind you,should be given the same rights and those who do choose to make a legal commitment to each other. The only thing keeping these couples from marrying is their own choice?
That makes no sense to me. That's like saying a person who wants wants to enter into a contract to buy a car cannot do so, because there are people out there who do not want to buy a car and they should be able to have a car too.
We are talking about people who DO want to make the same legal commitment to each other, but are being denied that chance.
Shanna wrote:After all we no longer trade daughters for livestock .."I think we are all at cross thingies here: the 'word' marriage has nothing to do with rights, at least not in the UK.
You could have gay rights without marriage, as we have and you can also have gay marriage with equal rights.
Shanna wrote:As an aside I don't know anyone who actually uses the word cobber you gave me a giggle
I think it's Dame Edna.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: So, in 41 states your family suddenly doesn't count, it's not considered legal or real.."Good point, but it is a good point from your perspective; many people in the other 41 states..."
If you can justify it please do so.
I'm still waiting for anyone on the anti side to.
Because if it's about the word, then justify that.
If it's about keeping marriage as it has been for the last 100 years, that ship has already sailed.
Marriage has changed already and we somehow survived.
How will this change be the one that spells our doom?
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: If you were the one being denied rights..."I just finished watching a tv debate about: 'should civil partnerships be extended as a right to all other couples and not just gay people..."
I say extend it to everybody.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: Then let them preserve it amoungst themselves, and leave others out of it. ..."
............I think something called a 'vote' may be needed. You believe in the vote don't you."
No, rights are not up for the majority opinion.
Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: Then let them preserve it amoungst themselves, and leave others out of it. ..."
............I think something called a 'vote' may be needed. You believe in the vote do..."
If rights are to mean anything then yes, they are more important than the right to vote about them.
Otherwise, let's put them all up to a vote. Make it a regular thing, every presidential election we can re-decide if your religion is protected, your speech, your race, sex and any other rights written down.
If nothing else, it won't be boring.
and as to the terrorists, if we are willing to throw everything away that we as a country supposedly believe in every time we get scared or something bad happens, then we aren't any better then the 'bad guys'.
We aren't judged by what we do when things are easy, but what we do when things get hard.
cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote:You have not explained how it harms heterosexuals marrying only contended that it does. ."Harm is to strong a word.
Lets do away with the name Australia and call it New Zealand 2.
..."
as long as you give everyone equal rights, you can keep the word.
That's a fair deal.
Travis wrote: "We aren't judged by what we do when things are easy, but what we do when things get hard. "
I'm with you in part, Travis. I agree with the above.
Regarding rights, ....
If rights are more important than the right to vote about them, my question would be this ... who gets to decide those rights?
Right now, we happen to have a president who is pro-gay marriage. We have states, California and New York, for example, that have a lot of people and a lot of wealth and power. Some pretty big groups are behind gay marriage. So, yes, it's conceivable that the movers and shakers could make gay marriage happen. Move that wand. Bing. Done. You and I would truly be happy. Right, in our opinion, would be done. Our gay friends would be treated as valued and equal members of our society. Yes!
But, here's the thing ....
What if our president didn't have those views? What if our key states, the ones with the most power, and our big organizations, the ones with the power, didn't have those views?
What if, tomorrow, it's not about gay marriage? What if it's about freedom of speech, freedom of the press? What if the president tries to do away with a free press?
Oh....
And, that's the crux of it. That's what makes it so damned sticky and painful. That's why I feel like I need to go bathe even though I bathed only a few hours ago.
We vote on things like rights for a reason. Disgusting as it may seem in this instance, as Shanna mentioned, do you really want to abdicate your rights, your right to the vote? Really and truly? Hey, it might go your way this time. It might go mine. Right might be done. What about next time, though? What about then?
It's just not that easy, in my opinion.
I'm with you in part, Travis. I agree with the above.
Regarding rights, ....
If rights are more important than the right to vote about them, my question would be this ... who gets to decide those rights?
Right now, we happen to have a president who is pro-gay marriage. We have states, California and New York, for example, that have a lot of people and a lot of wealth and power. Some pretty big groups are behind gay marriage. So, yes, it's conceivable that the movers and shakers could make gay marriage happen. Move that wand. Bing. Done. You and I would truly be happy. Right, in our opinion, would be done. Our gay friends would be treated as valued and equal members of our society. Yes!
But, here's the thing ....
What if our president didn't have those views? What if our key states, the ones with the most power, and our big organizations, the ones with the power, didn't have those views?
What if, tomorrow, it's not about gay marriage? What if it's about freedom of speech, freedom of the press? What if the president tries to do away with a free press?
Oh....
And, that's the crux of it. That's what makes it so damned sticky and painful. That's why I feel like I need to go bathe even though I bathed only a few hours ago.
We vote on things like rights for a reason. Disgusting as it may seem in this instance, as Shanna mentioned, do you really want to abdicate your rights, your right to the vote? Really and truly? Hey, it might go your way this time. It might go mine. Right might be done. What about next time, though? What about then?
It's just not that easy, in my opinion.
Travis wrote: "No, rights are not up for the majority opinion."
Are you talking morally or legally?
Morally? You're right, in my opinion.
Legally? Not so much. Many of our rights were decided upon by the majority, by the vote. Some are now being decided by the courts. However, in the US, judges are appointed, at least at the highest levels, by governors and presidents. So, even then, rights are being decided based on the votes of the majority ... who put the men and women in office and appointed the judges. One of the reasons why votes are so important....
Are you talking morally or legally?
Morally? You're right, in my opinion.
Legally? Not so much. Many of our rights were decided upon by the majority, by the vote. Some are now being decided by the courts. However, in the US, judges are appointed, at least at the highest levels, by governors and presidents. So, even then, rights are being decided based on the votes of the majority ... who put the men and women in office and appointed the judges. One of the reasons why votes are so important....
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "We aren't judged by what we do when things are easy, but what we do when things get hard. "I'm with you in part, Travis. I agree with the above.
Regarding rights, ....
If rights..."
I agree with you. This whole gay marriage debate reminds me a lot of the American Civil War where those against abolition were arguing states' rights along with scripture and those for abolition would cite that it was a humanitarian issue. I am afraid that we may have something similar to what happened in the Civil War happen again, but I'm also hoping that someone will realize the similarities between present events and those before the Civil War and do something to prevent another division and bloody war.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "We aren't judged by what we do when things are easy, but what we do when things get hard. "I'm with you in part, Travis. I agree with the above.
Regarding rights, ....
If rights..."
It is that easy.
Is it a right or is it a whim of the public?
Who wants to gamble their rights every couple years and hope public opinion hasn't shifted?
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "No, rights are not up for the majority opinion."Are you talking morally or legally?
Morally? You're right, in my opinion.
Legally? Not so much. Many of our rights were decided..."
Yes, you have to fight and vote for those rights, but, once you have them, they should never be up to be voted away.
But, in a lot of cases they weren't decided by vote, but through legal means.
Interracial marriage was through the supreme court, I believe.
Mary wrote: "Chris, I do not understand your argument against gay marriage. You say it's not fair that people ( hetero) who don't want to marry do not receive the same right as those who do?So, the ones who ca..."
Mary, I think I understand your question.
Gay people wanted the same rights as married couples. Eventually (in the UK) they got them. It was called a civil partnership.
Then other couples who were not married and not gay wanted there own civil partnerships, but they have not got them.
But it's not just 'straight' couples who could marry but don't want to, (they want a civil partnership as well). It is sisters living together, carer and person being cared for, companions, mother and daughter etc.
To a lot of people the word Marriage means a male and female and they do not want that words meaning changed. Nothing to do with giving all these people the same rights.
I would think (from a Uk standpoint, or other countries if it applies) it is more important to fight for the rights of say, a carer and the person being cared for and not a word that has no rights attached to it.
I want the word marriage to mean what is has always meant:
Noun
The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
I know some newer dictionaries may well define it otherwise .
Gay people have the right to campaign to have a ceremony and call it marriage. They can have a ceremony but I do not want it to be referred to as a marriage.
Travis wrote:Because if it's about the word, then justify that.See my last post
Travis wrote:If it's about keeping marriage as it has been for the last 100 years, that ship has already sailed. ..."
I think the ship is ready to sail, and that is why I want to preserve what was and not what might be.
Travis wrote: We aren't judged by what we do when things are easy, but what we do when things get hard. ..."So what do you suggest should be done about North Korea?
Travis wrote:No, rights are not up for the majority opinion..."Wrong. At least in our democracy.
If a government does not include in it's election manifesto something that it will change if it gets to power, that is not on, not democracy.
Travis wrote: "It is that easy. Is it a right or is it a whim of the public?"
Oh, it is that easy. Is it?
What, exactly, is that easy?
Abdicating your rights and allowing one person to make the decision?
Because you said it's right ... because you said it's right and is a right? It becomes one?
What's that easy?
The "rightness" of your argument and your passion are commendable. But, no, it isn't that easy.
Oh, it is that easy. Is it?
What, exactly, is that easy?
Abdicating your rights and allowing one person to make the decision?
Because you said it's right ... because you said it's right and is a right? It becomes one?
What's that easy?
The "rightness" of your argument and your passion are commendable. But, no, it isn't that easy.
Travis wrote: "Yes, you have to fight and vote for those rights, but, once you have them, they should never be up to be voted away.
But, in a lot of cases they weren't decided by vote, but through legal means. Interracial marriage was through the supreme court, I believe.
"
And, as I've mentioned, those judges were placed on that court by presidents who were elected by the votes of the people.
So, ....
But, in a lot of cases they weren't decided by vote, but through legal means. Interracial marriage was through the supreme court, I believe.
"
And, as I've mentioned, those judges were placed on that court by presidents who were elected by the votes of the people.
So, ....
Chris,I'll ask again.
Is your argument that you do not want gay marriage because there are people (hetero) who CHOOSE not to marry, even though they can legally. And since those people who CHOOSE not to marry don't have the same rights under the law, then neither should gay couples who WANT to marry but are DENIED that right?
Also, your desire to return to Victorian values? Victorian life was good if you were a middle class, or wealthy white male, not so good for everyone else. So is that the "ideal" you wish to return to or preserve?
cHriS wrote: "So what do you suggest should be done about North Korea? "
Ha! Good one! What to do with NK?
First, we'd need to look at the history and get a grip on what's actually going on there. I don't think, Americans and the American government, have enough of a grip on either. Can't speak for other countries. But, my first response .... We'd need to make at attempt at an informed decision. Given that people, including politicians, don't want to be troubled with history in order to understand the present and glimpse the future, I'm not holding my breath.
Next, I thought .... Turn back the hands of time and, even though it was possible, not develop nuclear weapons. Imagine.
Finally, ....
Years ago, I remember walking into my living room. The television was on. A news channel. The sight hit me before the sound of the reporters. Red. What the...? A river running red. I moved toward the TV and saw bodies. WHAT? Then, my ears started to function, my mind processed the words.
Rwanda.
I've never felt such rage.
And, .... How many days did the rivers run red, with the world doing and saying nothing?
I knew then that I could never become a politician. Rather, I knew I shouldn't. I'd see those rivers running red and would send American troops in .... I'd read of Afghans, prior to 2001, picking up women in pickup trucks and shooting them in the head on soccer fields, and I'd send American troops in .... I'd hear of NK starving babies, to hell with their nuclear capability, and I'd send American troops in....
That would forever and always be my first instinct, when times got too hard and stressful. Always.
And, ....
I couldn't guarantee that I could talk myself down from that. That, if I had that kind of power, I wouldn't do everything I could to send those troops in. History and logic and intel, etc... be damned.
Rivers running red. Women being raped and murdered. Babies being starved. Hell, I'd always want to go in and stop it, by force. That would be my instinct.
I know that about myself and won't put myself or anyone else in that position. Too dangerous.
By the way, ...
Rivers running bright red and women being raped and babies being killed, .... That's why I believe and talk about and fight for the vote. Yeah, it's likely wrong to put gay rights to a vote, state by state, when I know, ultimately, it's not going to turn out well. Not yet. But, ultimately, I am not willing, now or ever, to give absolute power to one or to a few. That's too damned dangerous.
Sometimes the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few. I absolutely hate that. Hate that I go there.... But, I do. Sometimes, you stand by and see others, not getting the rights they deserve, in order to protect the will of the people regarding government, process, etc.... You continue to fight in other ways, but you don't throw away the rights of all for the rights of the few regarding one issue.
That's why it's best that I'm not a politician. A senator. VP. President. Given my makeup, I can't say, when faced with that red river, that I'd be able to remember that ... and act accordingly.
Ha! Good one! What to do with NK?
First, we'd need to look at the history and get a grip on what's actually going on there. I don't think, Americans and the American government, have enough of a grip on either. Can't speak for other countries. But, my first response .... We'd need to make at attempt at an informed decision. Given that people, including politicians, don't want to be troubled with history in order to understand the present and glimpse the future, I'm not holding my breath.
Next, I thought .... Turn back the hands of time and, even though it was possible, not develop nuclear weapons. Imagine.
Finally, ....
Years ago, I remember walking into my living room. The television was on. A news channel. The sight hit me before the sound of the reporters. Red. What the...? A river running red. I moved toward the TV and saw bodies. WHAT? Then, my ears started to function, my mind processed the words.
Rwanda.
I've never felt such rage.
And, .... How many days did the rivers run red, with the world doing and saying nothing?
I knew then that I could never become a politician. Rather, I knew I shouldn't. I'd see those rivers running red and would send American troops in .... I'd read of Afghans, prior to 2001, picking up women in pickup trucks and shooting them in the head on soccer fields, and I'd send American troops in .... I'd hear of NK starving babies, to hell with their nuclear capability, and I'd send American troops in....
That would forever and always be my first instinct, when times got too hard and stressful. Always.
And, ....
I couldn't guarantee that I could talk myself down from that. That, if I had that kind of power, I wouldn't do everything I could to send those troops in. History and logic and intel, etc... be damned.
Rivers running red. Women being raped and murdered. Babies being starved. Hell, I'd always want to go in and stop it, by force. That would be my instinct.
I know that about myself and won't put myself or anyone else in that position. Too dangerous.
By the way, ...
Rivers running bright red and women being raped and babies being killed, .... That's why I believe and talk about and fight for the vote. Yeah, it's likely wrong to put gay rights to a vote, state by state, when I know, ultimately, it's not going to turn out well. Not yet. But, ultimately, I am not willing, now or ever, to give absolute power to one or to a few. That's too damned dangerous.
Sometimes the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few. I absolutely hate that. Hate that I go there.... But, I do. Sometimes, you stand by and see others, not getting the rights they deserve, in order to protect the will of the people regarding government, process, etc.... You continue to fight in other ways, but you don't throw away the rights of all for the rights of the few regarding one issue.
That's why it's best that I'm not a politician. A senator. VP. President. Given my makeup, I can't say, when faced with that red river, that I'd be able to remember that ... and act accordingly.
Well everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. I would have to agree on religion as a roman catholic. Also as in the modern world I also love science because believing is what gets us there.
cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: We aren't judged by what we do when things are easy, but what we do when things get hard. ..."So what do you suggest should be done about North Korea?"
I think any gay north Koreans that want to get married should.
If you mean politically, pretty much the opposite of what we did with Iraq.
We have rules/treaties and etc for how we deal with other nations. I think we should follow those and act accordingly. Keep it contained and try to work with other nations to create a peaceful and productive solution.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "It is that easy. Is it a right or is it a whim of the public?"Oh, it is that easy. Is it?
What, exactly, is that easy?
Abdicating your rights and allowing one person to make the..."
abdicating your rights and allowing one person to make a decision is a bad thing...?
Remind me of that when this conversation swings back again to religion.
It is that easy.
If rights are a democratic thing, then tell me which of yours would you be willing to gamble on a vote?
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Yes, you have to fight and vote for those rights, but, once you have them, they should never be up to be voted away.But, in a lot of cases they weren't decided by vote, but through ..."
But, the rights themselves were not decided by vote.
Travis wrote: "If rights are a democratic thing, then tell me which of yours would you be willing to gamble on a vote? "
Other than the most obvious one ... ERA ... equal rights?
Yeah....
That one.
I was in, I don't know, the 5th or 6th grade when that came up for a vote. My mother got me and took me down to the polls. Explaining how important it was, to vote. I cried when enough votes weren't achieved. Couldn't understand how that was possible.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but ... I don't think it has yet to be passed ... all in all.
Other than the most obvious one ... ERA ... equal rights?
Yeah....
That one.
I was in, I don't know, the 5th or 6th grade when that came up for a vote. My mother got me and took me down to the polls. Explaining how important it was, to vote. I cried when enough votes weren't achieved. Couldn't understand how that was possible.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but ... I don't think it has yet to be passed ... all in all.
cHriS wrote: "Mary wrote: "Chris, I do not understand your argument against gay marriage. You say it's not fair that people ( hetero) who don't want to marry do not receive the same right as those who do?So, th..."
again, couples that don't get married do it by choice. They have options.
If civil partnerships in the UK grant gay couples all the rights of marriage, then for the first time gay couples have the same options to choose as straight couples.
Before they didn't have options. They didn't have a choice.
If the straight couples want civil partnerships then they need to see about changing the system.
Or they should accept proper victorian values and learn to live with the shame of their sinful relationships.
Mary wrote: Is your argument that you do not want gay marriage because there are people (hetero) who CHOOSE not to marry, even though they can legally.."No.
Mary wrote: And since those people who CHOOSE not to marry don't have the same rights under the law, then neither should gay couples who WANT to marry but are DENIED that right?
No. Gay couples should and (in the UK) do have the same rights.
What I said was, that because gay couples now have the same rights as a married couple via civil partnerships, others now want the same rights as the gay couples have, with their own civil partnerships.
I am for gay couples having these rights and to have a celebration after their civil partnership has taken place, and to do what ever they want to do. Have a blessing in church if they want to..........
...... but don't call it marriage.
Mary wrote: Also, your desire to return to Victorian values? Victorian life was good if you were a middle class, or wealthy white male, not so good for everyone else. So is that the "ideal" you wish to return to or preserve?
Well yes, but not just that. Victorian values did not exist in Victorian times, they are only what we perceive those values to be now.
Children need boundaries, they need to know where any particular line is and not to cross it and to know what consequences there are if they do cross it.
Unfortunately today children lack these boundaries, parents in many cases have lost control of their children. In many homes it is the children who rule not the adults.
On of the ways to make sure these boundaries are in place is by having a family unit, father and mother with strict rules, within a loving household.
Marriage needs to be strengthened, couples need to be encouraged to marry 'before they have children' so that a commitment is in place and the parents should know that commitment lasts at least 18 years. Divorce should be made harder not easier. And parents should be made to pay for their children's upbringing; not the tax payer. Married couples with children should get tax incentives to help them.
Also you don't need to be wealthy to have values. Sometimes it is the people with less that have better morals than those with wealth.
Travis wrote: "abdicating your rights and allowing one person to make a decision is a bad thing...?
Remind me of that when this conversation swings back again to religion.
It is that easy.
If rights are a democratic thing, then tell me which of yours would you be willing to gamble on a vote? "
If you're not up for our form of government and the rule of law, what are you suggesting?
What, exactly?
And, if you think abdicating our rights in favor of placing all power in the hands of one man, and, oh, it will be one man, how do you propose to protect the populace once that precedent is set and that power has been thrown away like it's nothing and like people haven't fought for it for years?
For every Cincinnatus, there's a Caligula and a Nero ....
So, yeah, putting all of that power in the hands of one man is a bad thing. If you don't think so, please make an argument and educate me. Who knows? Maybe I'm being short-sighted.
Remind me of that when this conversation swings back again to religion.
It is that easy.
If rights are a democratic thing, then tell me which of yours would you be willing to gamble on a vote? "
If you're not up for our form of government and the rule of law, what are you suggesting?
What, exactly?
And, if you think abdicating our rights in favor of placing all power in the hands of one man, and, oh, it will be one man, how do you propose to protect the populace once that precedent is set and that power has been thrown away like it's nothing and like people haven't fought for it for years?
For every Cincinnatus, there's a Caligula and a Nero ....
So, yeah, putting all of that power in the hands of one man is a bad thing. If you don't think so, please make an argument and educate me. Who knows? Maybe I'm being short-sighted.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "If rights are a democratic thing, then tell me which of yours would you be willing to gamble on a vote? "Other than the most obvious one ... ERA ... equal rights?
Yeah....
That o..."
Well, interracial marriage wasn't voted on, I think the civil Rights act started with the supreme court.
women getting the vote, I'm not sure about.
Travis wrote: "But, the rights themselves were not decided by vote.
"
Really...?
What rights?
Are you sure about that? Really, really sure?
Because, ... I'm sure ... but I'm big into history. So, ... I know which rights were decided by a vote and which were decided by a court, etc....
"
Really...?
What rights?
Are you sure about that? Really, really sure?
Because, ... I'm sure ... but I'm big into history. So, ... I know which rights were decided by a vote and which were decided by a court, etc....
Shannon wrote: Sometimes the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few...."It is quite often a numbers game and results count. Bad things happen in other countries but we can't always just dive in and do what we think is helping.
Sometimes I think it is best to leave a country to sort it's own problems out. It will in the end. Do we go in and kill people just to stop other people from being killed and in the mean time our own soldiers are killed. Sometimes we don't even know who the real enemy are. If indeed there is an enemy.
Having said that the world’s now a very small place and we can't have countries with nuclear weapons who we can't trust. Someone has to police the world.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "abdicating your rights and allowing one person to make a decision is a bad thing...?Remind me of that when this conversation swings back again to religion.
It is that easy.
If righ..."
again, what 'one man' has taken away your rights?
You mention the ERA and that right was denied because of a vote. No one man made you cry, that was the whim of the public that denied you that right.
I don't think anyone's rights, once granted can be taken away. If they can, then they are not rights, they are privileges.
again, what of your rights are you willing to gamble on the public's whim?
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "But, the rights themselves were not decided by vote. "
Really...?
What rights?
Are you sure about that? Really, really sure?
Because, ... I'm sure ... but I'm big into history...."
If I'm wrong then tell me.
Travis wrote: "Well, interracial marriage wasn't voted on, I think the civil Rights act started with the supreme court.
women getting the vote, I'm not sure about...."
Mmm....
The Constitution was written and ratified by the states. Ratification required votes. Many demanded that certain issues, the rights within the Bill of Rights, be addressed at the first meeting of the first Congress. Those rights, amendments to the Constitution, were voted upon. Amendments that came later? Like, ... abolishing slavery? They were voted upon.
Now, as I said before you brought it up, and I've said again, this is the third time, yes, these things are sometimes decided in the court. A court that is appointed by presidents who were voted into office by the people.
And, ... that is a very different thing from putting all power in the hands of one man or in the hands of a few.
People have the right to vote for the president they choose, knowing that president will likely put judges on our highest court. That's why, as I said earlier, voting is so important.
Further, people have the right to bring cases and different opinions before the courts and the Supreme Court ... and have the right to argue those cases.
That goes to our government and the rule of law ... our particular brand of "democracy" ....
Now, if you're advocating that it's easy to do this another way or that all power in deciding this issue should rest in the hands of one man, why don't you explain that a bit? Or, ... explain what you have in mind, if it's not a vote or a decision by the Supreme Court, who were placed on the bench, for all intents and purposes, by a vote.
women getting the vote, I'm not sure about...."
Mmm....
The Constitution was written and ratified by the states. Ratification required votes. Many demanded that certain issues, the rights within the Bill of Rights, be addressed at the first meeting of the first Congress. Those rights, amendments to the Constitution, were voted upon. Amendments that came later? Like, ... abolishing slavery? They were voted upon.
Now, as I said before you brought it up, and I've said again, this is the third time, yes, these things are sometimes decided in the court. A court that is appointed by presidents who were voted into office by the people.
And, ... that is a very different thing from putting all power in the hands of one man or in the hands of a few.
People have the right to vote for the president they choose, knowing that president will likely put judges on our highest court. That's why, as I said earlier, voting is so important.
Further, people have the right to bring cases and different opinions before the courts and the Supreme Court ... and have the right to argue those cases.
That goes to our government and the rule of law ... our particular brand of "democracy" ....
Now, if you're advocating that it's easy to do this another way or that all power in deciding this issue should rest in the hands of one man, why don't you explain that a bit? Or, ... explain what you have in mind, if it's not a vote or a decision by the Supreme Court, who were placed on the bench, for all intents and purposes, by a vote.
cHriS wrote: "Sometimes I think it is best to leave a country to sort it's own problems out. It will in the end. Do we go in and kill people just to stop other people from being killed and in the mean time our own soldiers are killed. Sometimes we don't even know who the real enemy are. If indeed there is an enemy."
And, .... That's why I'll never go into politics and put myself in a position of such power.
As it was, I seriously, literally, considered getting weapons and driving down to Boston to search for the bombers myself. No joke. That's my personality. Admittedly, it's a scary thing ... and something I'm able to keep in check, largely.
And, .... That's why I'll never go into politics and put myself in a position of such power.
As it was, I seriously, literally, considered getting weapons and driving down to Boston to search for the bombers myself. No joke. That's my personality. Admittedly, it's a scary thing ... and something I'm able to keep in check, largely.
Travis wrote: "again, what 'one man' has taken away your rights?
You mention the ERA and that right was denied because of a vote. No one man made you cry, that was the whim of the public that denied you that right.
I don't think anyone's rights, once granted can be taken away. If they can, then they are not rights, they are privileges.
again, what of your rights are you willing to gamble on the public's whim? "
Are you for real right now, Travis?
Seriously ....
First, I didn't say "one man" has taken away my rights. Nor did I say "one man" made me cry.
Second, you're right. ERA was based on a vote. You asked me a question, and I answered it honestly. What rights am I willing to put to a vote? ERA. I'd love to vote on that again ... see if we couldn't get all the states to ratify that. Yeah. I'd be willing to vote on that. Put it up to the "whim" of the people. Noting you're putting that in the most negative terms possible. Your choice.
And, yes, rights can be taken away once granted ... through precedent and legally. A philosophical discussion of whether or not they'd, therefore, be privileges or rights means nothing.
Finally, .... I feel like you're deflecting. Are you saying ...? What? What, exactly, are you saying? You want power to be in the hands of one man? You think that would be a good thing? You think it wouldn't lead to a Nero? Okay. Then, say it. If that's what you're saying? If that's your "easy" solution to this problem...? Say it.
You mention the ERA and that right was denied because of a vote. No one man made you cry, that was the whim of the public that denied you that right.
I don't think anyone's rights, once granted can be taken away. If they can, then they are not rights, they are privileges.
again, what of your rights are you willing to gamble on the public's whim? "
Are you for real right now, Travis?
Seriously ....
First, I didn't say "one man" has taken away my rights. Nor did I say "one man" made me cry.
Second, you're right. ERA was based on a vote. You asked me a question, and I answered it honestly. What rights am I willing to put to a vote? ERA. I'd love to vote on that again ... see if we couldn't get all the states to ratify that. Yeah. I'd be willing to vote on that. Put it up to the "whim" of the people. Noting you're putting that in the most negative terms possible. Your choice.
And, yes, rights can be taken away once granted ... through precedent and legally. A philosophical discussion of whether or not they'd, therefore, be privileges or rights means nothing.
Finally, .... I feel like you're deflecting. Are you saying ...? What? What, exactly, are you saying? You want power to be in the hands of one man? You think that would be a good thing? You think it wouldn't lead to a Nero? Okay. Then, say it. If that's what you're saying? If that's your "easy" solution to this problem...? Say it.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Well, interracial marriage wasn't voted on, I think the civil Rights act started with the supreme court.women getting the vote, I'm not sure about...."
Mmm....
The Constitution wa..."
If rights have been decided by the court, then they weren't put to a vote.
Tracing backwards that we vote for the President...etc...is not the same as putting a right up for popular vote.
I voted for Clinton, Clinton appointed judges to the supreme court, the supreme court decided on Bush vs Gore, so I voted for George Bush...
Using your logic, there is no danger of that one man becoming Nero, because we voted for him.
Which of the examples I listed were put in place by an actual, popular vote?
Voting is important, but again, please tell me, what of your rights would you be willing to put up and gamble on?
Travis wrote: "Voting is important, but again, please tell me, what of your rights would you be willing to put up and gamble on? "
And, ...
I'll say it again.
ERA.
And, ...
I'll say it again.
ERA.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Is that your bug bear, that homosexuals in the UK have this civil union, that you can't? Is turn around fair play? "
Incase you didn't see my post to Travis.........10040 just about, it covers your point, but not maybe as you seem imply, it should.