Jump to content
Request or demand? Request - fine with me, I'll join you. Demand, can't agree. 1) I believe nothing about whether it's hardwired. I think it's irrelevant. 2) Of course they CAN. No, of course they shouldn't have to. 3) True, if by "public" businesses you mean private businesses. If by public you mean the Post Office or the Smithsonian, False.
Superficially, it seems we are both writing in English, but I've concluded that can't be true.
If I were a banker and the federal government threatened to try to put me in jail for the rest of my life and I knew I would be tried before a Washington DC jury and it would cost me half my net worth to even TRY to defend myself, with a low chance of success given that I belong to a demonized group, I would certainly demand that my company pay a fraction of 1% of its net worth to protect me, whether I was guilty or not. Companies pay class action settlements and other bribes all the time to protect themselves. It is not a meaningful indication of guilt, just of fear.
To the contrary, I think that the Justice Department knew that it had a weak legal case against most of the people you would have jailed, and even if they were successful at trial, they'd get reversed on appeal, and so they settled for extorting as much money from them as possible. That's not to say there were NO lawbreakers. At the level of mortgage brokers and borrowers, I'm sure there were tens of thousands who applied for and processed "liar loans" knowing they were perjuring themselves. Almost all of these got a free pass not just on jail but on fines as well. Many have even played the victim card and gotten months or years of free residence in their fraudulently purchased homes and/or loan modifications or other relief.
Not to say that there weren't SOME lawbreakers at the upper reaches, but then there also have been SOME convictions. How closely the numbers match to how many should have been convicted is beyond the knowledge of anyone except perhaps Eric Holder, and I wouldn't count on him to tell the truth about it.
You keep inventing straw-men to argue against. Again, where in what I said do you get the idea I want gays in the closet? From having gay housemates and friends in college to the gay wedding I'll be attending in June, and years of supporting and working with gay friends, colleagues and clients in between, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the "EXACT" point you made is EXACTLY the opposite of what I clearly said: No one has a right not to be offended by anyone else's life choices, unless they are a direct interference with one's own. That applies to gay people and to religious people.
Apparently the fact that I am prepared to defend the rights of religious people to live their beliefs within their own lives makes me anti-gay in your view, even though I'm equally prepared to defend the rights of gays to live their loves within their own lives. You, on the other hand, insist that the religious must not just let gays live their lives, but also must grant them "acceptance", which I take to mean moral approval, not just legal rights. You go so far as to insist that if a religious person's views don't meet your approval, they aren't even sincere, but merely a pretense for some other obviously evil motive.
Maybe you could understand the point if we talked about pot, instead. Do you understand how someone could agree that pot should be legalized, and yet disapprove of smoking pot, and not wish to personally go to a pot-smoking doctor or use a pot-smoking electrician? Maybe not. I've talked to some pot-smokers who go ballistic if anyone expresses the view that it could be harmful. Like you, they insist not only on legal rights, but moral approbation. (The only difference here is that I DO disapprove of pot-smoking, while I don't disapprove of gay relationships - not that you will believe that.)
"Churchill also said "If you have to LOVE a man, it cost nothing to be polite"...Oops, sorry...that was Oscar Wilde!"
That was truly funny! Thanks.
The faults of libertarianism are exactly why I used qualifiers like 'primarily' and 'rarely' in my post. Anyway, defenders of compassion and other values you list (usually at someone else's expense) are in ample supply right now, while defenders of liberty are rare.
The Constitution says nothing about private discrimination like that of the florist a few months ago who didn't want to provide services for a gay marriage. It would never have occurred to the Constitution's authors to try to control what people did in their private lives. Their whole focus was on protecting people FROM the State. So it protects only against State discriminatory action.
Until something is scientifically proven, it has not been conclusively established, so there's actually NO difference between my two contentions. But you also manage to completely miss my point, which is that it is irrelevant to what rights gay people should have -- which, since you are clearly unable to grasp it from what I've written, includes in my view the right to marry. It's telling that you can't even acknowledge someone is on the same side as you on a policy issue just because they arrive at it in a way you don't understand or don't approve of.
Although I'm an atheist, I do share with religious people a lack of interest in letting my views be dictated by whatever society has evolved to. Societies have 'evolved' into too many grotesquely obnoxious views to have that be an appropriate standard for anyone to use as a base their ethical positions. Democracy may be the least evil of all ways to decide many things, but what is ethical will never be decided by majority vote -- only what is legal can be decided that way.
Yes, in times past people DID refuse to serve adulterers. In fact, unless it's changed in the last six years or so, in the US military, you can still be courtmartialed for it.
You seem to believe that anyone who claims to oppose gay rights on the basis of religion MUST be using religion as a pretext. Your powers of divination must be extremely keen if you can read people's deepest hearts, minds and, if they exist, souls, when you probably don't even know their names. And your knowledge of theology must be extraordinary or your direct line to God very clear, if you pretend to know exactly what each religion REALLY holds on such issues. Why not just assume people actually believe what they say and argue from there, instead of rutting in paranoid imaginings of what they really mean? Are you afraid your arguments are too weak?
Yes, it's that pesky requirement about needing to do something illegal before being sent to jail. It would be so much nicer if we could send people there on the basis that we just hate them.
Some people do find it difficult to think logically about issues they feel very emotional about, and resent anybody else even trying. That seems to be true of you.
I was challenging your "hard-wired" argument, because I think it is both scientifically unproven and irrelevant to whether or not gay people should have various rights and privileges. The reference to pedophiles was in aid of the argument about irrelevancy; it establishes the irrefutable point that we do not base public policies around sex on whether or not a particular desire is thought to be "hard-wired", but instead we still treat acting on the desire as a choice. Many years ago, I could have made the point by referring to adulterers instead of pedophiles. There's plenty of sociobiological science suggesting that men, in particular, and possibly women too MAY be hard-wired to make fidelity and monogamy a challenge. Yet the law in the past, and most spouses today, nevertheless don't give anyone a pass on philandering on that basis. Neither the point about pedophiles nor the point about adulterers logically implies that gay people are either.
You may think you "understand" just fine, but you are nevertheless mistaken. Birds on the brain, perhaps.
Being primarily a libertarian, I do not approve of the State meddling in anybody's business unless to protect the rights of individuals who are unable to protect themselves. Meddling just on the basis that it is good for "society" or "the community" is something I rarely think is justified. So I approve of laws making acting on pedophilic desires illegal and disapprove of laws that make acting on gay desires or adulterous desires illegal. And that's whether the desires are hard-wired or not. I don't care. Why you do is a mystery to me. What happens to your argument if science eventually decides it isn't hard-wired? Do gay rights evaporate?
Being a libertarian also means I don't think it is my place to castigate others because I think they hew to irrational ideas about deities. If those irrational ideas threaten other individuals' rights , as for instance Al Qaeda, then the deity-worshippers must be stopped, but as Winston Churchill once said, "If you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite."
Of course, being approved of by someone else is not a "right" in my book. If some religious people disapprove of gays, that is, in fact, their right and people who try to interfere with that right are the ones who need to be stopped. Likewise, if gays disapprove of the religious, that's their right, too. But what's the point of them castigating each other? I was being sarcastic in quoting Paco that there's nothing more cruel or callous, but there certainly is nothing more pointless.
Technically, there's not much difference between the anecdotal character of my "people I know" comment and your reference to Florida. A few isolated instances of anything are probably not a good basis for public policy.
Last login: Sunday, February 23, 2014
2013 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Union-Bulletin. All rights reserved.