AIDS: Approaches and Funding

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Then you'll come back and point out that you think that only laws that stop people from hurting others should be imposed. And I'll point out that I totally agree with you, and that our only difference is that based on our worldviews, we don't agree on what hurts people.

…and then ILL say but you have NO evidence whatsoever that gay marriage hurts anyone. Did you forget that part? And that youll need unrefutable evidence of the most serious kind to actively create legislation that discriminates against a group and impinges on the civil liberties of others. And then you say… I forget what you say after that actually. I think the topic gets changed after that or something.

And I would also like to point out that YOU are the one making a distinction between one group of my beliefs and another. I do NOT make that distinction, and I reject your attempt to make it for me. ALL of my beliefs are based on my worldview. ALL of your beliefs are based on yours. I don't accept your distinction.

I would oppose ANY of your beliefs that restrict the civil liberties of others and that you feel should be actively forced on other people. We were talking about one belief in particular. And it happened to be based on a religious value. So I brought it up. If you have other non religious based beliefs that actively promote discrimination or actively limit the civil liberties of others then bring them up and ill rail against those too. Im equal opportunity when it comes to rejecting state sponsored discrimination and forced inequality.

I'm the one that's fair and consistent. I say let EVERY person in this country vote for what they think is right for society.

yes even when it blatantly discriminates against another group. But hey too bad for them. That’s still “fair and consistent� inequality.

And I repeat - if you sincerely think that it's harmful for society for me to go to church or openly worship God, then it would be wrong of you to NOT lobby for a law about this.

wrong. I have no right to restrict your freedom to worship as you choose. Any law I could ever push into being that would do such a thing would be unconstitutional as soon as it was made. It doesn’t matter if Ive brain washed myself into thinking going to church is bad for you. you still have that right to do that to yourself because IT DOESN’T HURT ANYONE ELSE.

What's your answer to that one?

there you go. Whats with the cocky attitude there? Did you think it was going to be difficult for me to respond to that or something?

Again, you're using YOUR definition of harmful. Mine is different. I say let people vote according to what their definition of harmful is. Do you?

so (and discounting the oft repeated notion that simply because something is harmful doesn’t mean you have the right to take it away from people: see what Lief said about smoking for a good example of this) if a majority of people agreed that going to church was harmful and it was banned would you agree to that law? Or would you engage in a campaign of civil disobedience to protest this INEQUALITY and INJUSTICE? I would hope it would be the latter. And I would be right there with you when you did.

Again, it seems that I'm the tolerant and consistent one here. I am willing to accept that you have a different worldview than I do. And I'm gracious enough to assume that you have put some thought into your worldview. I certainly have put a lot of thought into mine. And I am openminded enough to see that according to your worldview BELIEFS, your position makes sense. But you don't seem to be able to do this with me. Why not? Cannot you, the agnostic, grant that my worldview might be the correct one? It's certainly not a minority worldview; MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people think it the correct one. Why can't you, the agnostic, encourage someone of different beliefs to vote according to what they believe is harmful or good for society? You certainly vote that way.

read that part about harm not being a prerequisite for legislative discrimination. And that PROOF of harm hasn’t even been established anyway which makes the argument moot to begin with. So all you accomplish is creating discrimination. Why should I ever support that? And even if your discriminatory laws were able to make it to the books they should then be rejected by those with the authority to do so which you would say is unfair and wrong because it goes against what you believe