By my own admission, the majority opinion doesn’t count in matters of human rights. Do you think it does?
Well, the collective will just have to take care of itself. As far as I know, the U.S. Constitution focuses on the rights on individuals, and restricting the rights of whole groups (or “collectives” if you prefer) has been in decline since at least the 13th Amendment. In any case, it remains unclear how the rights of one collective (evangelicals) are negatively impacted by improving the rights of another (homosexuals).
Well, that’s always been the case. Men who objected to women getting the vote must have seemed quite old-fashioned and out of touch in 1950, and someone who felt that way in 1970 would likely seem very fringe/looney. What’s changed most, I guess, is the pace of change itself. I attribute it, at least in part, to the access to a broader range of cultures helped along by film and television.
Well, either the evangelicals moved away from the mainstream, or the mainstream moved away from them. C’est la vie.
Well, binary’s useful for computers, less so for thinking individuals.
You said “true” American values, not human rights. Justify your original statement, pls. Oh wait, you can’t.
So if Oregon, frex, legalizes marijuana, then a fair statement would be “Smoking marijuna is a right in the United States”. Not.
Possibly, but it would definitely not be correct to say “No right to smoke marijuana exists in the United States”.
This is a trivial grammar issue. Do you have any reasoned arguments why gay marriage should not be legal everywhere in the U.S., because I’d really like to hear some.
It’s not as trivial as you think. There is not a right to gay marriage in the United States. That it might exist in, say, Iowa, doesn’t make it so. There IS a difference, and if you can’t see it, I can’t help you.
Is Iowa not part of the United States, all of a sudden?
Anyway, who cares? Do you have an argument against gay marriage?
Iowa does not equal the United States. Why don’t you get that? Are you Canadian?
If smoking marijuana was a legal right for everyone but black people ( or Jews, or the left handed, or . . . ) everywhere in the US, and Oregon legalized it for black people, then yes smoking it would be a right, and was one before they legalized it.
Do you have any arguments against gay marriage or not? So far, this has been a fascinating dialog about the definition of the word “in”, but perhaps it’s time to move on to something less stupid.
You mean like what the defintion of is, is.
Oh, a right winger tries to bring Clinton into a discussion like it was some sort of trump card. That’s new ! :rolleyes:
Don’t indulge her, DT. She made a Clinton ref earlier and I ignored it, which is what it deserved.
I gather by now, though, she has no arguments against gay marriage.
Impractical? How so, its simply substituting one word for another. Its not like somebody has to build a special road, or anything. So howcum “impractical”?
You know, for an atheist, you have a very Old Testament view of what “evil” is.
Well, if by important, you mean ill-tempered and belligerent, yeah. Word has a bunch of synonyms, but none of them will do?
Safe enough to say, not provable, not disprovable, short of the Throne of Judgement, we’ll never know. But as I’ve walked to and fro on the world, I think I’ve only actually met two truly evil people, and they are both dead. The evil I’ve seen is mostly born of ignorance, fear, and selfishness. Then there’s the evil born of intolerance and hostility, rooted in ego. Kind of people who would choose a hurtful and nasty word over another, simply to enrage, then pat themselves on the back for their self-righteous honesty. Seen a lot of that.
Really? Exclusively? So these people gather in groups to cackle with evil malice, then? Its not fear, or ignorance, or reluctance to accept change, but pure-D, unalloyed malice? Does that include the President?
Really? Got a handle on that, do you? Future events are an open book? So, this fairly sudden surge in gay acceptance, you knew that was coming? Most of the rest of us were pretty surprised, but not you, huh? Well, OK, if you say so.
You seem to really need that particular parallel, you cling to it like a Ismael to Queequeg’s coffin. Why? Can’t your thesis stand alone? Because the obvious failing is, well, obvious. I can see someone is black, I can’t see if someone is gay unless they tell me.
Because changing thousands of laws all over the country is something highly unlikely to be done right, especially with a powerful faction trying hard to sabotage any such efforts.
And that would make a difference ? You think that telling people that “I’ll try to be polite and just call you ‘malignant scum’ instead” would make them happy ?" ANY honest means of describing them is going to be insulting, because their position is so awful.
Funny how you supposedly can’t know the motives of bigots short of the “Throne of Judgement”, but me ? Oh, you can see right through me.
Yes, they are called “churches”. Complete with a preacher leading the gloating.
When it comes to certain, highly predictable things, yes.
Or, unless they register for a marriage/civil union. The system you want to set up by nature makes the victims identify themselves.
How is it any different than trying to redefine the meaning of the word “in”?
Care to explain why not? Remember religious reasons are a violation of the Constitution.
Kinda think when Fred shows up with John, the cat’s more or less out of the bag. Doesn’t much matter what you call it, if two guys are doing it, well…
So I can’t see as how my suggestion (only a suggestion, mind you…) puts anyone at any more risk. Not making a whole lot of sense there, Slim.
No, it’s up to you explain how it is a right, since that’s claim being made. Can you do that?