The Bill of NON-rights

[MidnightSensi]

If your point is accurate then if a person has a biological factor that makes them want to have sex with animals, is that ok to? Is it ok for someone to marry their dog because it makes them happy? The line has to be drawn somewhere. I think the people of the USA are drawing that line at same sex marriage. I also believe it is my right as a US citizen to be able send my kid to public school and not have to worry about them being taught that homosexuality is normal. It isnt normal. Thats what im up in arms about. You can believe otherwise if you like, dont let me impose my will on you

Two same sex people is okay because it is consensual. A dog and a guy isn't okay because the dog can't say if he/she is in love or not. Two guys/girls can.

No one is saying homosexuality is the norm, simply going by the numbers shows that. But, people that are homosexual are not evil and should be allowed the same rights as us straight people... it's really a pretty easy line the schools can walk. I don't think anyone will ever think it is the norm, but, that's okay they don't ask that from us anyways.

I don't think your kids are going to become gay because in school it wasn't said to be only for "sinners." People are gay because they are born that way, it's not like they wake up one day and go "I think I'm going to be gay, I'll put up with all that descrimination and hate." There are lots of gay people that are too afraid to even come out, there have even been a number of priests no?!

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Ah, you said the magic word: MORAL. The thing that you should have some self awareness of is that you want to impose your moral will on others that simply don't see it your way.

Extremely well put. Those who choose to follow a particular religion are bound by the moral codes of that religion. Those who are nonreligious or have different beliefs are not bound by those same moral codes! Perhaps those who insist on shoving their noses into other people's business (where it most emphatically does not belong) should pass a law saying that Christian gays cannot marry, and stop trying to impose their BS on everyone else! Your morality simply does not apply to those of us who know that the bible is a work of fiction.

As for the "naturalness" of it, being gay is no kinkier than having a foot fetish or being into S&M (which many perfectly normal people do.) It is absolutely not comparable in any way to sex with children or animals (so often used as wholly false comparisons), because it takes place between consenting adults. Everything is acceptable between consenting adults!!

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I don't think your kids are going to become gay because in school it wasn't said to be only for "sinners." People are gay because they are born that way, it's not like they wake up one day and go "I think I'm going to be gay, I'll put up with all that descrimination and hate." There are lots of gay people that are too afraid to even come out, there have even been a number of priests no?!

Absolutely correct.

 

[Davemcc]

Everything is acceptable between consenting adults!!

Are you in favor of assisted suicide based on that premise?

 

[jinjuku]

Are you in favor of assisted suicide based on that premise?

Ever seen some one with terminal colon cancer?

 

[Davemcc]

Ever seen some one with terminal colon cancer?

No, I haven't. Then again, I am in favor of assisted suicide under the care and control of a doctor.

Joe's comment made me think of the recent case in Germany where two guys agreed that one guy would kill and eat the other guy. That's what they did and the guy who ate the guy was charged with murder even though he had the explicit consent of the "victim". Weird case, I know. But is really everything consensual allowed? I thought it was a good question.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Are you in favor of assisted suicide based on that premise?

Yes, very definitely! If I am ever sick enough that I have no quality of life and won't recover, I certainly hope there is a doctor who will legally assist my suicide. That option should be universally available.

 

[itschris]

Yes, very definitely! If I am ever sick enough that I have no quality of life and won't recover, I certainly hope there is a doctor who will legally assist my suicide. That option should be universally available.

You use the word "should." Doesn't that go against the point you were trying to make earlier? And it's not just you and I'm not picking on you, but I do find this interesting. It seems those, most typically liberals in my experience, don't believe in imposing their views upon others and always seem to expect that everyone "should" be not just tolerant, but accepting of their ways... unless of course they are counter to what they think and believe. I'm not opposed to assisted suicide, but there are those who are steadfast against it for religious, ethical, or any other variety of reasons. There voice should be heard and respected as well.

 

[Rickster71]

two guys agreed that one guy would kill and eat the other guy. That's what they did and the guy who ate the guy was charged with murder.

I'd hate to have to pick the wine, and side dishes to go with that.
Break out the Tupperware, there are bound to be leftovers...

 

[Davemcc]

I'm not opposed to assisted suicide, but there are those who are steadfast against it for religious, ethical, or any other variety of reasons. There voice should be heard and respected as well.

The voice of religious people can be heard, when they are in a position where disease and pain makes suicide a viable option. They can simply say their religion forbids that. No harm no foul. But when it comes my time to face my end with a terminal disease, I want to make that choice. Me. It's my life, my pain, my funeral. I don't want to leave it in the hands of some religious sort who's only answer is No, my book forbids it.

Let's face it, we euthanize dogs and cats when they are terminally sick and in pain because we love them. Why must we force people to die horribly painful. drawn out deaths because it's natural or because some supernatural edict has banned it?

 

[Joe Schmoe]

You use the word "should." Doesn't that go against the point you were trying to make earlier? And it's not just you and I'm not picking on you, but I do find this interesting. It seems those, most typically liberals in my experience, don't believe in imposing their views upon others and always seem to expect that everyone "should" be not just tolerant, but accepting of their ways... unless of course they are counter to what they think and believe. I'm not opposed to assisted suicide, but there are those who are steadfast against it for religious, ethical, or any other variety of reasons. There voice should be heard and respected as well.

The word "should" applies to the option being available. All options should be available. Those who are opposed to a particular option have every right not to choose it for themselves, but no right to deny it to others.
Anything goes between consenting adults, provided that it does not hurt others who were not in on the agreement. (Things like murder and theft need to remain illegal for precisely that reason: they do hurt others without their consent.)

 

[Alex2507]

Yes, very definitely! If I am ever sick enough that I have no quality of life and won't recover, I certainly hope there is a doctor who will legally assist my suicide. That option should be universally available.

If you can't find a doctor to help you with that you can always count on Mazer.*

*If that's not hilarious to absolutely everybody, I'll delete it.

 

[jinjuku]

I'm not opposed to assisted suicide, but there are those who are steadfast against it for religious, ethical, or any other variety of reasons. There voice should be heard and respected as well.

I respect people that wouldn't do something due to religious belief. Where it becomes a problem is when they want to mandate that belief on others. Then it has crossed a line.

I can only respect those that respect me.

 

[itschris]

I respect people that wouldn't do something due to religious belief. Where it becomes a problem is when they want to mandate that belief on others. Then it has crossed a line.

I can only respect those that respect me.

But there in itself lies the problem. You either allow it or you don't. If you do, you're violating the beliefs of those who have religious or other ethical problems with it. If you don't, then you walk on those who feel it's just in certain instances.

You can't oversimplify these great issues by taking the stance that "what I do is my business." The things we believe to be just and true for ourselves are rarely confined there. If you believe something to be just and true, isn't or even shouldn't it, be just and true for all? If not, then how can it be just and true? That's the paradox. If for example I were to believe it's not okay to assist in my grandpa's death, then how can it be just to assist in someone's grandmother's death. These aren't matters on the level of flavors of ice cream or debates about Ford vs Chevy. This is heavy, heavy stuff that often strikes to the core of who people are. You will rarely, if ever, find consensus or comprimise on such matters.

 

[10010011]

Joe's comment made me think of the recent case in Germany where two guys agreed that one guy would kill and eat the other guy. That's what they did and the guy who ate the guy was charged with murder even though he had the explicit consent of the "victim". Weird case, I know. But is really everything consensual allowed? I thought it was a good question.

A crime is still a crime, I would think this could have been reduced to manslaughter, but maybe the "eater" did not get it in writing.

There is no crime being committed between two consenting homosexuals.

 

[jinjuku]

But there in itself lies the problem. You either allow it or you don't. If you do, you're violating the beliefs of those who have religious or other ethical problems with it.

For arguments sake: Lets I am 100% anti-abortion. While my wife and I wouldn't have one, your violating my beliefs since abortion is legal. So now you have to stop allowing abortions for everyone.

Rights trump belief systems and ethical reluctance.

 

[10010011]

The voice of religious people can be heard, when they are in a position where disease and pain makes suicide a viable option. They can simply say their religion forbids that. No harm no foul. But when it comes my time to face my end with a terminal disease, I want to make that choice. Me. It's my life, my pain, my funeral. I don't want to leave it in the hands of some religious sort who's only answer is No, my book forbids it.

Let's face it, we euthanize dogs and cats when they are terminally sick and in pain because we love them. Why must we force people to die horribly painful. drawn out deaths because it's natural or because some supernatural edict has banned it?

My state's (Washington) voters passed doctor assisted suicide this election. Just yesterday my local Hospital and Health conglomerate that is ran by the Catholic Church said that none of it's Doctors will be allowed to administer or prescribe the drugs for assisted suicide.

It makes me wonder... I mean sure they quote a bunch of religious dogma and mention the Hippocratic oath. But could this really be all about money? As long as they can keep you "alive" on some machine the meter is running. It cost thousands of dollars a day to keep someone alive on a machine. Last time I was hospitalized the basic rate was $1400 a day, that was just for being there, every thing else was added onto that. Prolonging your life prolongs their profit.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Rights trump belief systems and ethical reluctance.

Thank you. That is what I was going to say, but you beat me to it.

I also don't get the insistence on showing respect for irrational, outmoded beliefs. If somebody wears a foil hat as "protection from alien thought-rays", do you respect that? I don't: I think they are stark raving nuts and will tell them so. There is no real difference between that and most religious beliefs.

 

[Exit]

FYI - Connecticut just passed a law permitting gay marriage.

http://www.wfsb.com/news/17962737/detail.html

 

[Alex2507]

Thank you. That is what I was going to say, but you beat me to it.

I also don't get the insistence on showing respect for irrational, outmoded beliefs. If somebody wears a foil hat as "protection from alien thought-rays", do you respect that? I don't: I think they are stark raving nuts and will tell them so. There is no real difference between that and most religious beliefs.

When 95% of the people in your country have religious beliefs (75% Christian), tell me, where has telling them that they are stark raving nuts gotten you? You ever here that opinions are like @$$holes? Everybody has one.

Better yet, try thinking of peoples religions like their mamma. Talking bad about someone's mamma in real life might get you black eyes, here it gets you red chicklets.