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

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

wrong. I have no right to restrict your freedom to worship as you choose.

But you have the right to try. And you should have the right to try. It's right that you have the right to try, even if what you're trying is wrong. That's our whole point.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

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?

Insidious Rex. Honestly, did you have to say that? Not very kind.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

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.

Such discrimination could easily be inequal and unjust, and it would be fine to campaign against it as you suggest. RÃ*an and I are not arguing that minority rights should disappear, and the laws that exist now for peoples' protection shouldn't exist because we need religious freedom. That's not at all what we're saying. We're saying that if you are a crackpot and want to lobby against our going to church, you should have the right to make that case. Civil rights or minority rights and whatever other legal means are available would protect us. We'd be able to defend ourselves. However, you should be allowed to make that case, even if it's wrong and whether you lose or not. It's a restriction of your freedom if you're not allowed to attempt making that case. Even though your lobby is wrongheaded, you should be allowed to make it.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

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

We're not saying that our beliefs should protect us from all legal authority, civil rights and minority rights. We're not saying that based upon our religious rights, we can push whatever we want through.

What we're arguing for is that we should be allowed to make lobbies based upon our own worldviews (whether they're Christian or not). We should be allowed also to make lobbies whether those lobbies are wrong or not. Other legal means have already been built into our court systems and law books to protect people from wrong lobbies or lobbies that unfairly infringe upon peoples' freedoms. These laws should be utilized for the defense of the people or organization that's under attack. They may stand or they may fail, depending upon the court ruling. But the lobby should be allowed to be made. That's the way our court system works right now, and I'm glad it works that way. It doesn't discriminate against religious or nonreligious people because of what their worldviews are. Religious people are allowed to lobby, endeavoring to infringe upon other peoples' rights and so are the nonreligious. There are laws that can be brought to bear for the defense of someone who's being unfairly treated. Those laws should be made use of. However, the lobby should be allowed to be made, whether it fails or succeeds. Refusal to accept that someone can lobby what they want would cause massive discrimination to enter into the system.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Gaffer - I know you put a winkie smilie in, but I really don't understand what you're saying. What do you mean? And when you use "cloak", to me, that's a criticism, and I don't see what you're criticizing. Could you please explain what you meant by that comment? I respect your opinion, and would seriously consider any criticism that you have to offer.

Mea culpa!

I didn't mean it as a criticism. I was ironically referring to your use of a relativist argument (that everybody's worldview is equally valid) in support of an absolutist worldview. That is, my intention was to question whether you genuinely believe that non-Christian worldviews are just as valid as your own.

I admit I was teasing you there; sorry if I upset you, Rian. It probably wasn't the best way of making that kind of point in an open forum, so I apologise for being facetious. I also respect your opinion and your friendly and open style of expressing yourself.

Back on topic, I'm not worried when people put forward a religious rationale for things like health care, as long as they're open and honest about it, as it seems Lief and Rian both are. I think that people can then make up their own minds about how to direct what we do WRT stopping the massive death and misery that is ruining entire countries as you read this.

What worries me is when it happens in an underhand way. As well as being (as far as I understand the US constitution) unconstitutional, it's also a kind of fundamentalism that I associate with states like Iran.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Mea culpa!

I didn't mean it as a criticism. I was ironically referring to your use of a relativist argument (that everybody's worldview is equally valid) in support of an absolutist worldview. That is, my intention was to question whether you genuinely believe that non-Christian worldviews are just as valid as your own.

I admit I was teasing you there; sorry if I upset you, Rian. It probably wasn't the best way of making that kind of point in an open forum, so I apologise for being facetious. I also respect your opinion and your friendly and open style of expressing yourself.

Isn't it frustrating how Entmoot doesn't allow for tone of voice? I've run into that myself, and it's frustrating .

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Back on topic, I'm not worried when people put forward a religious rationale for things like health care, as long as they're open and honest about it, as it seems Lief and Rian both are. I think that people can then make up their own minds about how to direct what we do WRT stopping the massive death and misery that is ruining entire countries as you read this.

What worries me is when it happens in an underhand way. As well as being (as far as I understand the US constitution) unconstitutional, it's also a kind of fundamentalism that I associate with states like Iran.

That's an interesting issue. What is an underhand way, to you?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I didn't mean it as a criticism. I was ironically referring to your use of a relativist argument (that everybody's worldview is equally valid) in support of an absolutist worldview. That is, my intention was to question whether you genuinely believe that non-Christian worldviews are just as valid as your own.

Oh, I see.

I don't believe that everyone's worldview is CORRECT (if that's what you mean by "valid"). I believe that unless you want to throw logic and reason out the door, that only ONE worldview can be correct.

However, I believe that the evidences for all worldviews, including atheism and agnosticism, are of the same TYPE (i.e., non-proveable in a scientific way, altho parts can be supported or disproved by science), and it is hypocritical and illogical to separate so-called "religious" beliefs from beliefs like atheism or agnosticism, since they are all based on the same type of evidence.

And I also am able to do something that I haven't seen anyone else be able to do here yet - I can assume, temporarily, that someone's worldview is true, and then evaluate the deductions they make from it. For example, IF atheism is true, THEN "homosexuality is not wrong" would be a completely logically valid conclusion, IMO. And when I state from MY worldview that homosexuality is wrong, people can't seem to get out of their particular worldview to evaluate that statement from MY worldview. Do you see what I mean? It is LOGICALLY TRUE that if MY worldview is correct (and again, I admit that I could be wrong, altho I think I'm right) that HOMOSEXUALITY is WRONG. And yet people are unwilling to admit that, altho I admit their conclusions are correct if their worldview is correct. Personally, I think that I'm more openminded than anyone else here, because I'm willing to assume that other worldviews are true and think about what that means, and also because I say over and over that I think people should vote however they think is right, even if I disagree with them.

I admit I was teasing you there; sorry if I upset you, Rian.

You rascal! (altho you didn't upset me, you just confused me, something that is not altogether difficult to do!)

It probably wasn't the best way of making that kind of point in an open forum, so I apologise for being facetious. I also respect your opinion and your friendly and open style of expressing yourself.

I forgive you, and thank you

As well as being (as far as I understand the US constitution) unconstitutional ...

Nope. The gov't cannot establish a religion; there is nothing anywhere to say that the citizens can't vote the way they think is right, for WHATEVER reason.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

…and then ILL say but you have NO evidence whatsoever that gay marriage hurts anyone. Did you forget that part?

Of course I didn't forget that part. I presented evidence that gay marriage hurts people. You chose to not believe the evidence, which is your right. Personally, I don't believe the evidence that YOU present saying that gay marriage is NOT harmful. And that's my right.

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.

But it's only your OPINION that it "discriminates against a group and impinges on the civil liberties of others." Your saying it's a fact does not make it so.

As I said in the other thread, I'm perfectly willing to say that I could be wrong in my worldview. I'm also perfectly willing to say that IF your worldview is right, THEN gay marriage is NOT harmful to anyone. Now I would hope, as an agnostic, that you're perfectly willing to say that MY worldview could be right. And IF my worldview is right, then gay marriage is VERY harmful, because of the reasons that I listed in the Gay/Les thread. Can you agree with that? Or are you unwilling to say that my viewpoint might be correct?

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.

All of my opinions are based on my worldview. All of your opinions are based on your worldview. It's the same thing.

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.

But you certainly have the right to TRY to get a law on the books. And if you sincerely thought, based on your worldview, that that was the best for everyone, then I would encourage you to act on it, because I respect people's right to their beliefs, even if I think they're wrong. Now why can't you act the same way towards me?

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?

I'm sorry you thought that was cocky. IIRC, you were one of those that said I would be screaming bloody murder if someone tried to pass a law saying I couldn't go to church, so I was pointing out that I was more broadminded than that, and that if someone really thought it was best for society, then I would support their right to try to pass that law, even tho I thought it was wrong and I would be working to NOT have the law passed.

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?

No, I would vote against it. But I would respect those that thought that it WAS the right thing to do. And I think it would be the right thing for them to fight to pass such a law if they truly thought it was the right thing to do.

Do you understand the difference? You say to me, basically, that I'm wrong and I shouldn't vote against gay marriage. I say to you that I think you're wrong, but if you think it's right then you SHOULD vote for gay marriage, altho I'll vote against it because I think it's wrong. That's a huge difference, IMO, and my way sure seems more openminded and tolerant.

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.

I understand and appreciate that you would fight for whatever you think is right. Yet I don't understand why you don't encourage others to do the same if they disagree with you about what's right.

And that PROOF of harm hasn’t even been established anyway which makes the argument moot to begin with.

As I said above, IF my worldview (not the liberal Christian worldview, but the conservative) is right, then it is PROVEN that gay marriage is wrong. And IF your worldview is right, THEN gay marriage is fine. Can you agree with both of these statements? If not, why?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

However, I believe that the evidences for all worldviews, including atheism and agnosticism, are of the same TYPE (i.e., non-proveable in a scientific way, altho parts can be supported or disproved by science), and it is hypocritical and illogical to separate so-called "religious" beliefs from beliefs like atheism or agnosticism, since they are all based on the same type of evidence.

i won't speak for atheism... but agnosticism is not based on evidence at all... it is based on the fact that we do not, and maybe can not, ever have proof of the existance of god... so we say, we just don't know until some evidence pops up

Personally, I think that I'm more openminded than anyone else here, because I'm willing to assume that other worldviews are true and think about what that means, and also because I say over and over that I think people should vote however they think is right, even if I disagree with them.

more open-minded than anyone, eh?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lizra

Just want to see how this looks. OK, You IMO him he is wrong, but then you want him to say you *might* be right.

Liz - I know you've told me my posts put you to sleep, but please try to read my post above this one, where I say that I realize that I could be wrong and he could be right. To me, me saying it's my OPINION that I'm right is different from how he says things are FACTS. But maybe it's just a wording confusion.

I think I'm right, but am willing to admit I could be wrong and he could be right. I don't see that opinion coming from him in this area, and I was asking him about it.

Aids is too scary to trust to just abstinance talk IMO. I would talk that first, but also back it up with condom talk, and anything else that works.

I agree.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i won't speak for atheism... but agnosticism is not based on evidence at all... it is based on the fact that we do not, and maybe can not, ever have proof of the existance of god... so we say, we just don't know until some evidence pops up

Perhaps there's a wording confusion here, too. To me, PROOF is very different from EVIDENCE. Just because there is no PROOF about the existence or non-existence of God doesn't mean there's not any EVIDENCE. Or how would you word that?

more open-minded than anyone, eh?

Certainly! For one, I'm willing to encourage people of different beliefs to vote for whatever they think is right.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Perhaps there's a wording confusion here, too. To me, PROOF is very different from EVIDENCE. Just because there is no PROOF about the existence or non-existence of God doesn't mean there's not any EVIDENCE. Or how would you word that?

to put it simply... belief systems claim to know a truth, or guess at one

agnosticism says, 'we can not know for sure'

which i think even you have agreed with in the past

[Lief Erikson]

Isn't that a belief without evidence, though? "We cannot know for sure"? Something taken on faith? Thereby something similar to religion?

[BeardofPants]

Deviating a bit from topic, guys.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

to put it simply... belief systems claim to know a truth, or guess at one

And each person can evaluate the various belief systems, including agnosticism (which typically says 1 and/or 2 things - we're unable to know the truth with a meaningful degree of certainty, or we're incapable of knowing the truth in a relevant matter because of physical limitations) and form an opinion about which one they think is most likely to be correct.

And frankly, I think that anyone who says they are 100% sure that their particular belief system IS true is either lying or not thinking straight.

Based on tons and TONS of accumulated evidence over the 30 years that I've been a Christian, I really think that Christianity, as stated in the Bible, reflects the actual truth of things. Yet I can't say I'm 100% sure - I can only say that I very, very strongly think it's true, and that no other belief system that I've evaluated has even come CLOSE to dealing with the reality of things that I can see (and really, I think we need to evaluate things first-hand and not just take someone else's word for it). Also, I find that in terms of consistency and logical deductions, nothing else can come close to Christianity. That's why it's my OPINION that it's true. But I'm freely willing to admit that I could be wrong.

agnosticism says, 'we can not know for sure'

Which is also a truth claim, as Lief explained in his post, and I explained above.

which i think even you have agreed with in the past

But not in the sense that you just presented it. I think that we cannot know for sure which belief system is true. But agnosticism, from what I understand, takes it further and says we are UNABLE or INCAPABLE of knowing things about God with any meaningful degree of certainty. And I disagree with this truth claim.

BoP, I think this discussion is VERY relevant, because people base their opinions on this subject on their worldviews.

And as far as my personal views, I'll say again: I think BOTH abstinence and using condoms should be discussed. I think that the TRUTH should be presented, which includes the fact that using condoms is NOT "safe sex", but is "safer sex than not using anything". I would be FURIOUS if I got an STD while using a condom if someone in authority told me it was safe.

The truth also includes the fact that some people want to remain abstinent but feel pressured into having sex earlier than they want to, and if abstinence was presented as a viable option, it would help them achieve something they WANT to achieve.

Now based on my worldview, altho I think that sex outside of marriage is harmful, I also love the people that think it's right. And I think that condom use is helpful, so I would like to have condom use presented, too. But TRUTHFULLY, not falsely and idealistically. I think the truth is very important, and teens, esp., deserve to hear it.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But it's only your OPINION that it "discriminates against a group and impinges on the civil liberties of others." Your saying it's a fact does not make it so.

what are you talking about? its not an opinion that not allowing one group to do what other people can do is BY DEFINITION discrimination. The fact that you think you are doing them a favor by discriminating against them doesn’t make it an opinion.

Now I would hope, as an agnostic, that you're perfectly willing to say that MY worldview could be right. And IF my worldview is right, then gay marriage is VERY harmful, because of the reasons that I listed in the Gay/Les thread.

and those reasons were refuted. And the fact of the matter is that your attack on gay marriage in particular is rather arbitrary and capricious. I recall naming a number of items that should seemingly be as important if not more important according to Christian dogma and we never hear about these things. No one is screaming about making constitutional amendments to bar liars from getting married. or for discriminating against people who covet others. You don’t hear a peep about that. but the religious right rails against homosexuality as if it’s the worst thing the earth has ever seen. I say if you want to make such a huge deal about gay marriage then picket and organize and make constitutional amendments against ALL things that your religion tells you is harmful or wrong or immoral. Otherwise you risk looking biased and picking on one group while ignoring others that cry out for the same kind of logic you use here.

But you certainly have the right to TRY to get a law on the books. And if you sincerely thought, based on your worldview, that that was the best for everyone, then I would encourage you to act on it, because I respect people's right to their beliefs, even if I think they're wrong. Now why can't you act the same way towards me?

that’s such a cop out. I find it very disappointing you wouldn’t point out what is clearly an intolerant bias on my part because you want to be able to make the argument against gay marriage. If I am trying to keep you from following YOUR CHOSEN religion then I am WRONG. period. No ifs ands or buts about it. You harm no one by worshiping as you please. You have the right to freedom of worship. ANY attempt to restrict you from doing this is wrong headed and its oppressive and despotic and tyrannical and should be confronted and exposed as such FROM THE VERY INSEPTION and NOT encouraged because its convenient to another cause. The very idea sickens me…

When white supremists or their ilk talk about killing minorities and what all because they feel its best for our society you don’t politely clap your hands and say that’s great if you sincerely feel that way then I support your right to choose the way YOU want to live. No you scream to the rafters that YOU ARE WRONG. that you are misguided and misinformed and you combat the very notion that these ideas are somehow legitimate. Evidently you think I should be ok with that kind of thinking. Well I reject the notion whole heartedly.

No, I would vote against it. But I would respect those that thought that it WAS the right thing to do. And I think it would be the right thing for them to fight to pass such a law if they truly thought it was the right thing to do.

yes this is exactly what im talking about. That youd be just fine with them trying to pass legislation that says we can openly segregate our schools or banish certain people from public facilities or some such horror. And all because you want to have the moral authority to discriminate against homosexuals when it comes to marriage? Well not me I reject it at its very basis. I would staunchly oppose ANY violation of civil rights and civil liberties. I believe its all our duties as citizens of this country and human beings on this earth. I realize you disagree and that’s a shame. If someone wants to live a way that hurts them but does no harm to others then we have no place to dictate that they live any other way. Whether its smoking or eating bacon or sky diving or the fantasy that homosexuality is somehow harmful and therefore we should actively go out of our way to ban them from marrying each other.

[Lizra]

Well said IR! I don't care what your "worldveiw" is...telling homosexuals they can't marry is discrimination. Plain and simple.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

what are you talking about? its not an opinion that not allowing one group to do what other people can do is BY DEFINITION discrimination.

Is it discriminating against married men to say they can't marry another women? No. Is it discriminating against a woman to tell her she can't marry her brother? No. Same thing here. Society votes on the definitions of marriage, such as age, gender, blood relatedness, etc. Are THOSE discriminatory?

The fact that you think you are doing them a favor by discriminating against them doesn’t make it an opinion.

Why do you claim to know what I'm thinking? You're WRONG. You may freely quote what I've posted anytime, but don't put words into my mouth, and even worse, say it's a fact. What, are you inside my head and can hear my thoughts? What an insult.

Why would I think I'm "doing them a favor by discriminating against them"? I'm NOT discriminating against them. People define parameters of marriage according to what they think best for society. Are you discriminating against a woman by telling her she can't marry her brother or her father?

and those reasons were refuted.

And so were YOUR reasons. Neither of us accepts the other's reasons. And I say good for free and independent thought! I would hope you wouldn't want me to accept reasons that I think are false.

And the fact of the matter is that your attack on gay marriage in particular is rather arbitrary and capricious. I recall naming a number of items that should seemingly be as important if not more important according to Christian dogma and we never hear about these things. No one is screaming about making constitutional amendments to bar liars from getting married. or for discriminating against people who covet others. You don’t hear a peep about that.

Y'know what? Start a thread on lying and I'll post about lying. Start a thread about coveting and I'll post on coveting. And if someone starts a thread on homosexuality - why, by golly, I"ll post on homosexuality. No big surprise here. And if someone in that thread brings up homosexual marriage, then I'll post on homosexual marriage.

but the religious right rails against homosexuality as if it’s the worst thing the earth has ever seen.

DON'T group ME in with the religious right. I think they're wrong in many ways. Please consider what I, as an individual, say. Please don't stereotype me. And I'll do the same favor for you.

I say if you want to make such a huge deal about gay marriage then picket and organize and make constitutional amendments against ALL things that your religion tells you is harmful or wrong or immoral. Otherwise you risk looking biased and picking on one group while ignoring others that cry out for the same kind of logic you use here.

Again, since the thread was about homosexuality, why am I biased to post about it? And as I posted earlier, I don't vote for issues related to society based entirely on what I think is right for me. Did you see that post? If so, why didn't you comment on it?

that’s such a cop out. I find it very disappointing you wouldn’t point out what is clearly an intolerant bias on my part because you want to be able to make the argument against gay marriage. If I am trying to keep you from following YOUR CHOSEN religion then I am WRONG. period. No ifs ands or buts about it. You harm no one by worshiping as you please. You have the right to freedom of worship. ANY attempt to restrict you from doing this is wrong headed and its oppressive and despotic and tyrannical and should be confronted and exposed as such FROM THE VERY INSEPTION and NOT encouraged because its convenient to another cause. The very idea sickens me…

It's NOT a cop-out because I DIDN'T bring up the case about stopping me going to church "because its convenient to another cause"! I don't do things like that. That's a false charge.

When white supremists or their ilk talk about killing minorities and what all because they feel its best for our society you don’t politely clap your hands and say that’s great if you sincerely feel that way then I support your right to choose the way YOU want to live.

Come on, please quote me accurately. I did NOT say I supported their right to choose the way they wanted to live. Do you hear me this time? I did NOT say that. Again, you misquote me. I said (and I'll quote for your convenience) "I think people should vote however they think is right, even if I disagree with them." And I still stand by this statement, because that's the principles that our country was founded on. Now I think that there's NO WAY that they'll pass anything like that, but I support their right, as citizens, to TRY.

Now please get your quotes right if you're going to quote me. Don't attribute things to me that I never said.

No you scream to the rafters that YOU ARE WRONG. that you are misguided and misinformed and you combat the very notion that these ideas are somehow legitimate.

Yes, I would tell them I think they're VERY wrong, and I would fight for legislation like that to NOT get passed. But still I would not deny them their vote.

Evidently you think I should be ok with that kind of thinking. Well I reject the notion whole heartedly.

So do you think that citizens should be denied to vote, based on YOUR opinions about what is right and wrong? That's frightening to me, and I'm glad our system isn't like that.

yes this is exactly what im talking about. That youd be just fine with them trying to pass legislation that says we can openly segregate our schools or banish certain people from public facilities or some such horror.

Well, you got the quote fairly right this time. Yes, I'm fine with them trying to pass legislation. And I would fight tooth and nail to NOT have it pass.

And all because you want to have the moral authority to discriminate against homosexuals when it comes to marriage?

This is so false it's ridiculous. Again, please don't attribute thoughts to me that I never said. This is YOUR fabrication; these are NOT my thoughts. And really, if you're going to attribute thoughts to me that I never said ... well, I'll just let that one stand on its own so other people can evaluate the nonsense of the idea.

Well not me I reject it at its very basis. I would staunchly oppose ANY violation of civil rights and civil liberties. I believe its all our duties as citizens of this country and human beings on this earth. I realize you disagree and that’s a shame.

What I disagree with is your notion that your worldview and opinions are right and there is no possibility that other people's are. I think mine is right, yet I fully admit that yours may be right, too, and so I say give each of us a vote. Do you think I shouldn't have a vote, or that I shouldn't be able to vote on certain issues that YOU decide on?

If someone wants to live a way that hurts them but does no harm to others then we have no place to dictate that they live any other way. Whether its smoking or eating bacon or sky diving or the fantasy that homosexuality is somehow harmful and therefore we should actively go out of our way to ban them from marrying each other.

It's YOUR opinion that it's a "fantasy", and all the evidence that you presented to me I have considered and found to be false, IMO. Just like the evidence I presented to you, YOU have considered and found to be false, in YOUR opinion.

One difference here, though, is that I have the courtesy to NOT call your opinions a "fantasy". Another difference is I'm openminded and grant that you might be right, so I think you should have a vote on ANY type of subject, even if I disagree with YOUR OPINION.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

If I am trying to keep you from following YOUR CHOSEN religion then I am WRONG.

Yes, you're right. Most of the time anyway; when some groups use their religious freedom to break legal laws, of course they should be stopped. However, Insidious Rex, I think you're still somehow missing RÃ*an's and my entire argument, the entire point we're trying to make. Brownjenkins and the Gaffer both understand and agree with it. Listen.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

If I am trying to keep you from following YOUR CHOSEN religion then I am WRONG.

Fine, you're wrong. We're not arguing that you're right. But we are arguing that you have the right to try, even if you're wrong. You have the right to lobby, no matter why you're lobbying or what you're lobbying for. You have the right to lobby. You should have the right to lobby, whether you're right or wrong to do so.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

If I am trying

This is the part that we're focusing on. Should everyone have the right to try?

Insidious Rex, do you believe that some people should be kept from lobbying because of why they're doing it? Should religious people be kept from even attempting to make law, or should they be battled by normal legal means, civil rights and minority rights? Perhaps you should fight against religious people, but they be stopped from even being able to take a political stance from their belief systems?




Currently in America everyone has the right to vote or attempt to make law, no matter what beliefs they're coming from. Do you think that what we have now is right, or should new discriminatory laws be added that keep people from voting because of what their personal beliefs are?

It looks to RÃ*an and me that you are in favor of new discrimination laws being created in America that keep certain people from voting for what they think is right. Naturally we're arguing fiercely against you.

[Lizra]

Why bother trying to legislate something that is "wrong"?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lizra

Why bother trying to legislate something that is "wrong"?

Because the one trying to legislate it thinks it's right.

[Lizra]

That would be called "error"! Storms are making my satellite connection painfully slow. Good night.