[Azure Dragon]

http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory/...-by-storm.aspx

Why would god let the weather interrupt this speech by the Pope?

[Greeney]

It would be nice if a hurricane would kill every last members of the Westboro Baptist Church.

[Gotterdammerung]

Ratzinger is a heretic. God doesn't approve anything he says.

[Black Oranje]

but then why does He allow him to be in charge of His church? Why hasn't Ratzinger been smited yet?

[Gotterdammerung]

Originally Posted by Randomized:

but then why does He allow him to be in charge of His church? Why hasn't Ratzinger been smited yet?

Always with the smiting...

[Voice of Reason]

I don't accept the assumption that being opposed to gay marriage is homophobic. In fact, making that assumption at all strikes me as be either reactionary or activist, in the same way that Israelis screaming 'anti-Semite' if you don't agree with all their demands, or Tea Baggers screaming 'un-patriotic' are activist.

[Azure Dragon]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

I don't accept the assumption that being opposed to gay marriage is homophobic. In fact, making that assumption at all strikes me as be either reactionary or activist, in the same way that Israelis screaming 'anti-Semite' if you don't agree with all their demands, or Tea Baggers screaming 'un-patriotic' are activist.

What would you call denial of rights to a section of the population?

[Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Azure Dragon:

What would you call denial of rights to a section of the population?

What denial of rights? There is no human right to same-sex marriage - that is just mis-information being spread by activists - and legal rights are obtainable through civil unions.

[Azure Dragon]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

What denial of rights? There is no human right to same-sex marriage - that is just mis-information being spread by activists - and legal rights are obtainable through civil unions.

Either there's a right to marriage or there isn't.

[Voice of Reason]

What I said was "There is no human right to *same-sex* marriage". Of course there is a right to marriage, but not to same-sex marriage.

The activists are putting forward a nonsensical argument in which the premise is actually the conclusion - same-sex marriage has to be allowed because there is a right to marriage that includes same-sex marriage. Unfortunately for them, if they bothered to read article 16 of the UNDHR that grants a human right to marriage, it specifically states marriage between men and women. Activists tend to be like that - lots of shouting and protesting (presumably because that is fun) but fuck all research and reasoning.

There is no human right to same-sex marriage. That is a fact.

[DHoffryn]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

What I said was "There is no human right to *same-sex* marriage". Of course there is a right to marriage, but not to same-sex marriage.

The activists are putting forward a nonsensical argument in which the premise is actually the conclusion - same-sex marriage has to be allowed because there is a right to marriage that includes same-sex marriage. Unfortunately for them, if they bothered to read article 16 of the UNDHR that grants a human right to marriage, it specifically states marriage between men and women. Activists tend to be like that - lots of shouting and protesting (presumably because that is fun) but fuck all research and reasoning.

There is no human right to same-sex marriage. That is a fact.

....that's the point. There is no right to anything before someone decides to create it. The same way various people have fought for these rights before the gays are doing right now.

[Voice of Reason]

The point is that you cannot howl that your rights are being violated unless that right already exists, nor fight for a right that exists only in imagination.

The second point is that right to marriage does already exist, but does not include same sex marriage. In other words, gays exclude themselves form marriage.

The third point is that rights are not arbitrary as you seem to imply, and are not produced out nothing just because a bunch of activists start howling. Rights are created because they are needed to redress inequalities. There is no need for a right to same sex marriage as the various civil unions etc. deal with those.

[DHoffryn]

Quote:

The point is that you cannot howl that your rights are being violated unless that right already exists, nor fight for a right that exists only in imagination.

Actually it can. It's called freedom of speech And it doesn't matter how parts of the people who want phrase their demands. It's still the same. They want the right

Quote:

The second point is that right to marriage does already exist, but does not include same sex marriage. In other words, gays exclude themselves form marriage.

Doesn't matter. The point is to create this new right just like hundreds of rights have been created before and I fail to see one logical reason to deny them that

Quote:

The third point is that rights are not arbitrary as you seem to imply, and are not produced out nothing just because a bunch of activists start howling. Rights are created because they are needed to redress inequalities. There is no need for a right to same sex marriage as the various civil unions etc. deal with those.

Yes they are. And just because YOU don't feel the need doesn't mean that other people don't.

[Voice of Reason]

Quote:

Actually it can.

Logically, you can't. A law cannot be broken unless it exists and a right cannot be violated unless it exists. There is no right to same sex marriage so no right is being violated, no matter how many times activists repeat that lie.

Quote:

The point is to create this new right just like hundreds of rights have been created before and I fail to see one logical reason to deny them that

As I already explained, rights are not created willy-nilly just because a small group of people start shouting, and as I already explained the logical reason is that there is no need for a shiny new right because nobody needs protecting from any inequality. Civil unions exist. They give equality with marriage. Nobody is being oppressed. No right is being violated. No new right is needed.

Quote:

And just because YOU don't feel the need doesn't mean that other people don't.

They can feel whatever the hell they want, but there is no reasoned argument saying there is a need, for the reasons I just explained. "Waah! Waah! We wanna call it marriage!" is *not* a need. It is just a wish, and don't hold your breath expecting a new right to accommodate a minority wish.

[DHoffryn]

Quote:

Logically, you can't. A law cannot be broken unless it exists and a right cannot be violated unless it exists. There is no right to same sex marriage so no right is being violated, no matter how many times activists repeat that lie.

Logic doesn't really matter to many many many people. And again it doesn't really matter. I don't see why seem so focused on this. Well ..yes it's obvious why you are but again it's irrelevant

Quote:

As I already explained, rights are not created willy-nilly just because a small group of people start shouting, and as I already explained the logical reason is that there is no need for a shiny new right because nobody needs protecting from any inequality. Civil unions exist. They give equality with marriage. Nobody is being oppressed. No right is being violated. No new right is needed.

Yes they are if people want to. And as I already explained to you that's YOUR reason. Many people don't share your reason. And again civil unions exist in some places. In others they don't. And I see no reason why not outright to give maraige to same sex couples

Quote:

They can feel whatever the hell they want, but there is no reasoned argument saying there is a need, for the reasons I just explained. "Waah! Waah! We wanna call it marriage!" is *not* a need. It is just a wish, and don't hold your breath expecting a new right to accommodate a minority wish.

Some people feel a need others don't. I personally don't see the need to prevent same sex couples from getting marriage. Especially since the only people who are really hardcore against this seems to be bigots and religious nutjobs. Oh and what was your reason again. Some dictionary definitions or something right?

Well actually it's already been accomodated in some countries. In quite a few including the USA especially some of it's states it's just a matter of time

[Greeney]

Originally Posted by DHoffryn:

Well actually it's already been accomodated in some countries. In quite a few including the USA especially some of it's states it's just a matter of time

Pretty much, it hurts the dictionary or something stupid like that.
He also goes on about the human rights even though it doesn't clearly state that it is only between a man and a woman. He thinks it does, he's going to continue pretending it does, but it doesn't. I doubt it was intended to include same sex marriages, but the wording doesn't make it appear limited to straight marriages.

Originally Posted by Dhoffryn:

Especially since the only people who are really hardcore against this seems to be bigots and religious nutjobs.

Eh not really a fair comment imo. It obviously isn't aimed at me in any way, but I feel it could apply to me. I argue topics that only bigots and religious nutjobs seem to be against, aside from a small group of seemingly sane people and myself, and I quite frankly hate that I feel labelled with these nutjobs. I support or dislike something based on my morals, not because of an entity I've never met (who is generally portrayed by the imagination of very hateful human being); I also don't tend to want to listen to most of the crap they post on said topics even though I dislike the same thing they dislike. Just because all the nutjobs seem to support one side doesn't mean there aren't people on that side with a logical reason against it.

Originally Posted by VoR:

Logically, you can't. A law cannot be broken unless it exists and a right cannot be violated unless it exists. There is no right to same sex marriage so no right is being violated, no matter how many times activists repeat that lie.

Logically, there is no reason to oppose same sex marriage unless you dislike homosexuals for some hateful reason or another. I don't really think you're a bigot, even though you sound quite a bit like one in these topics. I just dob't feel that you have provided any logical reason to oppose it.

Additionally, it's starting to sound like calling people activists is your new thing instead of calling people trolls. Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't make him/her an activist, troll, etc...

[DHoffryn]

Quote:

Eh not really a fair comment imo. It obviously isn't aimed at me in any way, but I feel it could apply to me.

Well unless you are really hardcore against it doesn't . I am not talking about the people who are generally indifferent but if they have to take a stance their would be soemwhat against it. I am talking about the people who actively invest time and money to prevent this.

Now to avoid the banhammer or merger from the mods back to the religious theme.

I do wonder if the Catholic church is so intent keeping the anti homosexual stance what was the deal with the pedophile priests who if I remember right were also homosexual in most cases. I mean I could understand if they simply protected them to keep the good name of the church intact but they not only protected them but in some cases instead of kicking them out or stashing them in some monastery they kept them on active service. This seems almost as if they are supporting them

[Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by DHoffryn:

Logic doesn't really matter to many many many people.

I have noticed this...

Quote:

And again it doesn't really matter.

In the real world, when the central pillar of an argument is proven to be a lie, it does matter but you are welcome to keep pretending it doesn't.

Quote:

Yes they are if people want to.

Quote:

Some people feel a need others don't.

Wants and feeling do not equal need.

Quote:

And as I already explained to you that's YOUR reason. Many people don't share your reason.

It is obvious you don't know much about rights; about their status, their purpose, or their function. It is equally obvious that you don't want to know so I am not waste effort on that. All I need to say is that they are not handed out like toffees to anybody who says they want one. A new right needs has to meet two requirements. First, it must not conflict with any existing right. That by itself rules out your fantasy of creating a right to same-sex marriage. Second, it has to have wide international support. If you really imagine that the whole world gives a damn about the shrieking of a bunch of activist gays in the USA, then you are deluding yourself.

Quote:

And I see no reason why not outright to give maraige to same sex couples

The majority don't want it. That looks like a very good reason to me. Why should the majority bow down to unreasoned demands, based on lies, from an activist minority?

Quote:

Well actually it's already been accomodated in some countries. In quite a few including the USA especially some of it's states it's just a matter of time

Ten countries out of 196 is a minority. A very small minority, just as I said. Six states out of 51 is a minority and not 'the USA' by any stretch of the imagination. Given that most (if not all) of the remaining states have it written into their constitutions that marriage is between a man and a woman it is unlikely that it will ever be accepted across the USA.

Originally Posted by Greeney:

the wording doesn't make it appear limited to straight marriages.

Yes it does. It specifically states "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family."

As there is no third gender using basic Pragmatics, specifically the Gricean Maxims and Sperber and Wilsons Relevance Theory, then the only reading that makes any sense is men marrying women. If you really want to insist that the people who wrote that sentence where only semi-literate and not really rational at the time of writing, that "... to found a family." on the end should make it pretty obvious.

I think you actually know I am right, but just can't bring yourself to admit it.

Quote:

Logically, there is no reason to oppose same sex marriage unless you dislike homosexuals for some hateful reason or another.

One reason I have already given - the majority don't want it. A second is that it is not solving any problem.

Quote:

Additionally, it's starting to sound like calling people activists is your new thing instead of calling people trolls. Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't make him/her an activist, troll, etc...

The people we are talking about *are* activists.

Initially I was behind this whole thing. Same-sex couples should have the same legal status as married couples, but that has been fixed by civil unions. The inequalities have been corrected, the problems have been solved, and that should be the end of the matter.

For a minority though, that is not good enough. The demand that everybody call it marriage. That is not correcting any inequality. That is not solving any problems. That is a minority trying to force its view onto a majority, an act that is commonly called 'activism' - an intentional effort to force a social change.

Quote:

I don't really think you're a bigot, even though you sound quite a bit like one in these topics.

I can't say it worries me much. I don't like activists, whatever their shape or colour. You could maybe argue that that is a form of bigotry, but I do have my reasons. If you live in a democratic world then you have a democratic mechanism with which to effect change. Trying to force change outside that system (which is essentially what activism is) is, in my view, inherently wrong.

[DHoffryn]

Quote:

I have noticed this...

Me too...

Quote:

In the real world, when the central pillar of an argument is proven to be a lie, it does matter but you are welcome to keep pretending it doesn't.

It's not about arguments it's about a desire to get a right. Quite simple

Quote:

Wants and feeling do not equal need.

They can

Quote:

It is obvious you don't know much about rights; about their status, their purpose, or their function. It is equally obvious that you don't want to know so I am not waste effort on that. All I need to say is that they are not handed out like toffees to anybody who says they want one. A new right needs has to meet two requirements. First, it must not conflict with any existing right. That by itself rules out your fantasy of creating a right to same-sex marriage. Second, it has to have wide international support. If you really imagine that the whole world gives a damn about the shrieking of a bunch of activist gays in the USA, then you are deluding yourself.

Actually they are handed to everybody including quite minor groups if there is enough support political,financial or whatver for it. And just because you don't care about gays doesn't mean it's not a popular enough issue to have an impact

Quote:

The majority don't want it. That looks like a very good reason to me. Why should the majority bow down to unreasoned demands, based on lies, from an activist minority?

That's not really much of a reason for me but then again I am not really much for sheep mentality
Well I would say because it doesn't impact them in the slightest and would make millions of people very happy . Not giving them this simply for sake of being an ass doesn't seem like much of a reasonable stance to me and I don't really see a point to go with it.

Quote:

Ten countries out of 196 is a minority. A very small minority, just as I said. Six states out of 51 is a minority and not 'the USA' by any stretch of the imagination. Given that most (if not all) of the remaining states have it written into their constitutions that marriage is between a man and a woman it is unlikely that it will ever be accepted across the USA.

Yes that's generally how it works. You start out from somewhere and build up on it. And considering how widely accepted homophobia is and how barely twenty -thirty years ago it was outright accepted to treat them as subhuman (and still is in quite a few places)I would say it's making remarakble progress. So I wouild say my point about it merley being a matter of time is a pretty solid one.

Quote:

You could maybe argue that that is a form of bigotry, but I do have my reasons.

Yes we saw them. To me that looks like one of the most poorly veiled forms of homophobia I have seen and frankly I am pretty sure that if you didn't didn't despise republicans you wouldn't even bother with this silly excuses you use to take shots like activists or dictionary definitions or whatver but would be out and proudly talking about "those damn fa*s and how they want to ruin society and traditions and blah blah"

[Voice of Reason]

So you have run out of rational arguments and started on all the 'homophobic' crap already? Fair enough; end of discussion. You are not fit to debate with.