Death Penalty for being Gay? Damn!

[The Tofu Islands]

see? trinitares is a liberal dictator. hes as bad as gay haters. hes a anti gay hater. imprison someone who stands up for moral value? you sicken me. you should be publicly executed

I'm pretty sure that calling for someone to be killed is way over the line. It's something you should avoid.

[The Tofu Islands]

what because i actually follow my goddamn religion?! only God the almighty father can define moral. not you godamned liberals freedom of all kinds of sex liberals.

People define moral, depending on what their upbringing was and what their experiences have been. Also, does this mean that dictionaries that have a definition of "moral" are blasphemous? And also, why "goddamned liberals", what about those of us who are Christian?

[The Tofu Islands]

Well, I believe that the USA and Iran both violate human rights.

I concur.

So why is my country treated like the best, most moral country on earth and Iran is treated like a terrorist hell-hole?

I don't treat the US as the best most moral country on earth. It's not.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

I don't believe countries have rights. Individuals have rights. Countries have responsibilities not to infringe on those rights.

Countries have responsibilities? But not rights?

I must say I find that bizarre. Do not countries have a right to defend their territory against invasion by other countries? Do do not countries have a right to tax citizens, to pay for such collective defence?

None of those things are "rights" belonging to countries. Rights belong to persons. Countries/nations are not persons. They cannot have rights. Only their citizens can have rights. Countries/nations have POWERS, not rights.

Now this is distressing. I thought I conceded this point an hour ago, but I see that my machinations did not actually get the post up.

Let me quote from my local record:

Countries have responsibilities? But not rights?

I must say I find that bizarre. Do not countries have a right to defend their territory against invasion by other countries? Do do not countries have a right to tax citizens, to pay for such collective defence?

Not their territory. The government has a duty to its citizens to defend them from attack. In order to pay for this, it has a legitimate claim on a part of its citizens income. However, all of these are from the responsibility the government has to protect the people, not from the right the government has to control the people.

I do see what you're getting at here. It worries me, and I do await a reply from UvV -- not to take sides, but rather to relate this all back to the thread subject.

What worries me is that I do believe in human rights (and some rights for other living things) and I never will accept that "rights are only claims with the power to back them."

Now I'm trying to defend "rights" on no basis other than delegated power.

You gave me a big opening with that "citizens give up some of their rights" but I won't take it. I'm not going to claim that rights cannot be extinguished by a conscious decision of the right-holder and I'm not going to delve into the can of worms of when an individual is supposed to have signed away rights (in a "social contract") to the state.

At this point, I'm prepared to say that you are probably correct. The state does not have rights.

Responsibilities without rights ... should our governors be slaves??

Not our governors, our government.

My point was that responsibilities without rights, applied to an individual, means only slavery.

Imposing an individual model on a collective (and a very large and semi-mythical one at that) was wrong of me. Well spotted.

And the concept is not as alien as it might seem. Parents, for example, have responsibilities to their children, not rights over them (I would argue).

Well, that's not a very helpful analogy. The relationship of parent and child is utterly incompatible with all models of rights which I am aware of. It essentially starts from an infinite disparity of power ... and the point at which to draw the line, that a child is competent to make their own decisions, is the stuff of abortion debates, paedophilia debates, the death sentence for fuck's sake.

The rights of children is very sticky territory. I'd rather we stayed away from it in this context.

(I would also question whether a government can be legitimate, but I think the notion of a government with 'rights' is particularly bad -- it leads to a tension between the 'rights' of the government and the rights of the people, and then to people saying "well, why doesn't the government have the right to detain you without trial?" In general, I adopt the most general position, so that instead of arguing specifics ("The government can detain you without trial, but only for x time" or "They don't have the right to listen your phones, but do have the right to read your email") I attack all of them from a general principle ("They do not have rights, but responsibilities, and the minimal powers required to carry out those responsibilities" On second thoughts, I don't know how much I stand behind that -- as an anarchist, I reject government being able to wield any power. Still, it might be thought provoking.)

Thanks for leaving it in, though struck out.

As an ex-anarchist, I'm OK with government wielding power. I've lived in a semi-legal limbo for long enough to have formed the conviction that a clumsy and inefficient wielder of power, caught up in it's own pretentions of legitimacy, is better than a "free market" on the use of deadly force. The monopoly (or worse, free market) in the use of deadly force is better held by a bumbling bureaucracy, than by the best talent available.

Killing people, maiming or raping or intimidating them, is all too easy. I really don't want a "free market" in that. I'd rather have the Law, government funded and backed. Though I criticize the law almost every day I post, I prefer it to what would certainly happen without it.

But I still hold some of my anarchist ideals dear. I do think that a society is possible without a centralized law or a centralized enforcer of law. It will take a long while to get there, though, and it will only be possible once there are no longer "nations" and all people have access to the same law. I want to live this century out, just to see that happen.

It will be messy. Those I called my deadly enemies a year or so back, will likely be my best ally in destroying the "nation" as a demarcation between people: that enemy being the Corporation. People can incorporate in other ways than for profit, and they will, and if my liver consents I will see it happen. The whole of humanity, choosing one of dozens of different sides, in tight with their chosen faction and fighting for the future of humanity. But not on the basis of what benefits them personally, not on the basis of where they were born or who their parents were: all in, on equal terms. And of course, with a level playing field for the tiny loser faction of Nazis. Let them rave, let them post names and addresses online, and urge their mindless followers to kill. That's the price we pay.

Speech must be free. Utterly free, of suit for breach of copyright, criminal charge of conspiracy to murder or mass murder, or of slander, or of hate-speech, or of national treachery, or divulgence of national secrets. And of criminal culpability for the dissemination of child porn.

It's the price we have to pay. Anyone or any corporation or any government which thinks it can restrict the freedom of speech of any other is firstly, wrong, and secondly ethically wrong. There is not one secret, not one fact which it benefits the human race to have kept secret. Not one!

I got used to the idea that my bedroom might be bugged. That infra-red cameras might record what I do in my bed. I reckoned with that footage being available to random strangers on the internet. And you know what? I'm OK with it.

That's the price we pay. It's a small price, for what we have in hand. A thing which will make commercial Corporations a pathetic market stall in our greater business. A thing which will make Governments a bleating bystander. A thing that not you nor I can predict, an unpredictable punctuation in the evolution of society.

What future historians will call the Information Revolution. Some idiots have called it early, but it has barely begun. Banning child porn was like throwing a clog into the machinery, and banning virtual child porn is like throwing a sock in after it.

Those who tried to stop the machinery of social change, by throwing the innocence of children into the works, will be remembered as saboteurs: well-meaning idiots, walking barefoot into the future.

Um, well I see now why I never posted that. It needed a bit of editing work.

So, the PEOPLE of a nation have the right to defend themselves and their territory. But that is not the same as the nation having a right.

So, the People have a right to defend themselves and their territory?

I think you can see the weak point in that.

As for taxation, that is a power of government, not a right. Nations are not independently existent beings, so they cannot have rights at all. Plus nobody has a right to demand things from other people, so even if nations could have rights, they can't have rights that don't exist.

To your first point: I concede that. Governments do not have "rights" in the same sense that independent beings do. It was wrong of me to use "rights" in that context.

To your second point: do you dispute the UN declaration on the rights of the child?

That declaration "grants rights" which plainly must be fulfilled by other people, or by the state in their stead. Is it reasonable at all to call for a world where newborns should be empowered to provide sustenance and shelter for themselves?

Of course not. To demand rights is to demand something from other people: the power over the individual which infringes their rights is power held by some other individual or collective, and to give the individual their rights involves taking away power from those others.

Again: to demand rights is to take away from someone, what they already have and are using. Power.

Is power not a thing?

Responsibilities without rights ... should our governors be slaves??

Yes, actually. Or not slaves, because they should get paid for their service to the people, but yes, they are and should be SERVANTS. Public servants. That's why they call them that. And as long as they are servants and not slaves, they don't carry responsibilities without rights. They carry responsibilities with one right -- the right to be paid for their time and work. It's called having a job. The job of "public servant."

And remember, their responsibilities come with POWERS to carry out those responsibilities. They don't also need rights, other than getting paid.

Uh, huh. Look up the page. TCT correctly identified the one word (governors) in my post which changed the meaning from "government has rights" to "the governors have rights."

I happily admit that I was wrong. Governments do not have rights.

I further, and not so happily admit, that I continued writing when I knew I was wrong, and I lurched towards trying to personify government with that one word "governors."

It's kind of funny seeing you latch onto that word and go off on your rant about politicians being ordinary working joes like you and me.

You honestly think they do that job for the money?

If so, shouldn't we pay them more? We'd get better politicians, right?

[The Tofu Islands]

I know this will be ignored, but for future reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scottsman

That's what came to mind when I saw the 'true Conservatism' mention.

[No Names Left Damn It]

They choose not to do so.

Because the people they fall in love with are of the opposite sex, which they have no choice over.

[Gravlen]

None of those things are "rights" belonging to countries. Rights belong to persons. Countries/nations are not persons. They cannot have rights. Only their citizens can have rights. Countries/nations have POWERS, not rights.

Well one could argue that countries have rights and duties when dealing with other countries...

But that's getting off topic.

[Gravlen]

whatever. dont try to teach the ignorant. see you guys in hell.

Why are you so convinced that you'll end up in Hell? Maybe if you tried to repent and change your wicked ways...

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

whatever. dont try to teach the ignorant. see you guys in hell.

Why are you so convinced that you'll end up in Hell? Maybe if you tried to repent and change your wicked ways...

That would have been the perfect end to a little trolling run on the forum. "See you in hell."

Unfortunately, Prusland just couldn't shut up. The next three posts were whinier, weaker and utterly lacking the delicious self-destructive sarcasm of the one you quote.

I learnt a lesson today ....

Don't try to teach the ignorant.

I'm looking ahead in the textbook. The next chapter "Don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs" is far more difficult I think. There are equations, look a bit like partial derivatives ... and a zero with another zero inside it? I'm scared.

Just waiting for the teacher to get around, and talk me through this difficult shit ...

[South East Europe]

1. I don't think he is conservaphobic.
2. I think lot of conservatives are homophobic.
3. Just because you are a conservative doesn't mean you are homophobic (and I don't think anyone said otherwise). Just because a lot of people in group X are in group Y doesn't mean that someone from group X will necessarily be in group Y.
4. Conservatism is, roughly, about maintaining (or "conserving", if you prefer) the status quo. Tolerance isn't really part of the definition, last I checked.

Directly to Tofu Islands and anyone else. I meant to say Original Conservatism, true conservativism was not proper. The definition of conservative has changed, just like many other terms. It wasn't originally to maintain the status quo, the "conservative agenda". It used to be for preserving the environment, healthcare reform, fiscal responsibility, and tolerance. Alas, most people don't know their own party anymore. Just like the "liberal agenda" wasn't originally for giving gays, blacks, and jews special treatment and turning a cold shoulder on disabled people and transsexuals. The "liberal agenda" also ued to be about tolerance.

To people who have asked what I was talking about when I said that the only thing anyone talks about is "homosexuality", I'm talking about the fact that there have been nearly 10 topics on "gay rights" in the past 3 days. I support uniquivocal equal human rights for everyone, but it gets tiring when only one issue is ever talked about.

[No true scotsman]

I know this will be ignored, but for future reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scottsman

*rises, moaning, from his grave*

You called?

[The Tofu Islands]

Directly to Tofu Islands and anyone else. I meant to say Original Conservatism, true conservativism was not proper. The definition of conservative has changed, just like many other terms. It wasn't originally to maintain the status quo, the "conservative agenda". It used to be for preserving the environment, healthcare reform, fiscal responsibility, and tolerance.

Source for this?

Alas, most people don't know their own party anymore.

What party would that be?

Just like the "liberal agenda" wasn't originally for giving gays, blacks, and jews special treatment and turning a cold shoulder on disabled people and transsexuals. The "liberal agenda" also ued to be about tolerance.

I'm pretty sure that the "liberal agenda" doesn't exist. And even if it did, I doubt that it consists of giving certain groups special treatment and others the cold shoulder.

*rises, moaning, from his grave*

You called?

How did I guess you'd turn up. You have a habit of doing so whenever you're mentioned.
Do you have a script that tells you when someone mentions it, or something?

[UNIverseVERSE]

<snip wall of text>

Woah. I'll dig through that and sort out a response, but it may take a bit to turn up -- there's a lot to chew over. I'll even try and bring things back to be (vaguely) on topic.

I may split some of that into another thread, if you're okay with it? (probably from 'thanks for leaving it in' or so)

[South East Europe]

I think I've changed my opinion. I think the death penalty for being gay is perfectly acceptable if the death penalty for being straight is considered to be acceptable.

[DMistan]

Nice attempt but misses the mark. The question was what rational argument could there be against gay rights, not what rational argument could there be regarding the nature of fairness.

So, there still isn't a rational argument against gay rights.

Define "gay rights"

Does that exclude lesbians?

Here's an argument against your exclusive very non-egalitarian "gay rights"

Same-sex couples are entitled to equal rights (True)
Lesbians are included in the term same-sex couples (True)
Muravyets' position only mentions "gays" and thus excludes Lesbians (True)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, Muravyets' current position is contradictory to her stated goal of "equal rights." (True)

Taking such a position is Irrational.

Be sure that your own arguments are rational before commenting on the rationality of others.

[Grave_n_idle]

Define "gay rights"
...

Be sure that your own arguments are rational before commenting on the rationality of others.

Evasion for the sake of evasion, or evasion because there's no argument you could actually make?

[The Tofu Islands]

Define "gay rights"

Equal rights for homosexual people.

Does that exclude lesbians?

Nope.

Here's an argument against your exclusive very non-egalitarian "gay rights"

Same-sex couples are entitled to equal rights (True)
Lesbians are included in the term same-sex couples (True)
Muravyets' position only mentions "gays" and thus excludes Lesbians (True)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, Muravyets' current position is contradictory to her stated goal of "equal rights." (True)

I've highlighted your error.

"Gay rights" is commonly used as a term for equal rights for all homosexuals.


Try again.

[Neo Art]

Nice attempt but misses the mark. The question was what rational argument could there be against gay rights, not what rational argument could there be regarding the nature of fairness.

So, there still isn't a rational argument against gay rights.

Define "gay rights"

Does that exclude lesbians?

Here's an argument against your exclusive very non-egalitarian "gay rights"

Same-sex couples are entitled to equal rights (True)
Lesbians are included in the term same-sex couples (True)
Muravyets' position only mentions "gays" and thus excludes Lesbians (True)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, Muravyets' current position is contradictory to her stated goal of "equal rights." (True)

Taking such a position is Irrational.

Be sure that your own arguments are rational before commenting on the rationality of others.

....the fuck? The term "gay" merely is a short hand to refer to homosexual. Despite what you seem to think, the term "gay" does not refer strictly to a male homosexual, like "lesbian" refers strictly to a female homosexual.

[Uiri]

WOW!

Can't we just tolerate gay marriage? You are either born straight or born gay. Fuck!

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage

No because marriage by definition is betweena man and a woman.

I don't understand why you can't have Gay Civil Union/Domestic Partnerships? What is the difference except for religious vs gov't recognition?

IMO, the gov't shouldn't perform marriages, only recognize them and register churches which can perform marriages. Let them start there own church and call it 'marriage' but the state shouldn't call anything they perform marriage as it has a religious meaning.

[Surote]

The following countries are willing to put you to death for being gay:

-Sudan
-Saudi Arabia
-Somalia
-Yemen
-Mauritania
-Burkina Faso
-Afghanistan
-Iran

The following countries will give you life in prison:

-India
-Belize
-Pakistan
-Bangladesh
-Burundi
-Guyana


WOW!

Can't we just tolerate gay marriage? You are either born straight or born gay. Fuck!

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage

Most of those countries have idiots for leaders President bushes if you will

[Uiri]

Most of those countries have idiots for leaders President bushes if you will

Can you demonstrate this? Or do you have no proof? former President George Bush Jr. is not that dumb, it's just fashionable to make fun of him, spread by democrats and other left-wingers. He has made a couple slip ups and has messed up what he was saying far too many times.

[Surote]

Most of those countries have idiots for leaders President bushes if you will

Can you demonstrate this? Or do you have no proof? former President George Bush Jr. is not that dumb, it's just fashionable to make fun of him, spread by democrats and other left-wingers. He has made a couple slip ups and has messed up what he was saying far too many times.

Hey man he shouldn't have made it so easy to make fun of him plus everyone makes fun of him and dislikes him. The reporter who threw to shoe at him became an american celebrity so you tell me he's not an idiot need more proof well look at how the private sectors doing today enough said

[UNIverseVERSE]

No because marriage by definition is betweena man and a woman.

I don't understand why you can't have Gay Civil Union/Domestic Partnerships? What is the difference except for religious vs gov't recognition?

IMO, the gov't shouldn't perform marriages, only recognize them and register churches which can perform marriages. Let them start there own church and call it 'marriage' but the state shouldn't call anything they perform marriage as it has a religious meaning.

Tell that to my uncle, who got married without ever looking at a church.

If you insist that government refuses to perform marriages, then why should the government recognise them? Marriage is a legal term, and has been a legal term since before religion muscled in on it. Religions can call what they do 'wedding' or something.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

WOW!

Can't we just tolerate gay marriage? You are either born straight or born gay. Fuck!

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage

No because marriage by definition is betweena man and a woman.

I don't understand why you can't have Gay Civil Union/Domestic Partnerships? What is the difference except for religious vs gov't recognition?

IMO, the gov't shouldn't perform marriages, only recognize them and register churches which can perform marriages. Let them start there own church and call it 'marriage' but the state shouldn't call anything they perform marriage as it has a religious meaning.

I never understood the redefining marriage argument. I mean, I know it's just a rationalization and so it's not meant as an actual argument, but still. How many people actually give a shit about redefining words? Shouldn't everyone whose upset with redefining marriage also be equally pissed off about neologisms, slang, and changing grammatical structures? Shouldn't they continue to use thou? Ironically most of them use the word gay to refer to homosexuals, when gay originally referred to a state of glee or elation.

[The Tofu Islands]

No because marriage by definition is betweena man and a woman.

I doubt it. Source?

I don't understand why you can't have Gay Civil Union/Domestic Partnerships? What is the difference except for religious vs gov't recognition?

Because, given that the term "marriage" is already used by the law, extending it to same-sex couples is logical. Also, religion didn't start off marriage and it doesn't get to define what it is.

IMO, the gov't shouldn't perform marriages, only recognize them and register churches which can perform marriages. Let them start there own church and call it 'marriage' but the state shouldn't call anything they perform marriage as it has a religious meaning.

If government recognises marriage, it should recognise it for all people. Religious ceremonies have nothing to do with what the government does or doesn't recognise.