Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:49 pm Post subject: Re: uhhh...
Moishey wrote:
A few points:
1. Hickorystick, oversimplifying the role of government to property rights leaves an inapplicable ideology. Should everyone be in charge of their own sewage, as long as it doesn't affect others? Well, perhaps its easier to have it run municipally. And, I hope protecting the environment is under the realm of citizien property rights - because the line about leaving the market to determine everything but property and personal protection fails in the environment, where the market is ill-equipped to deal with the issue, since there is no cost to degrading the environment, beyond ones own personal displeasure at looking at it, which is surely compensated by the money made from the degradation.
2. Profiler, your stand against homosexuality is odd. First, you're concerned with having to fill out a hetero/homo checkbox on your tax return... Then you're concerned that it shouldn't be encouraged because its not normal. Either this is the stand of some high-school homogenizer, or I'm misunderstanding - everything I do must be accepted as socially normal? Sounds a bit fascist. And your logical interpretation that gay unions should open the door to necrophilia and incest? Homosexual unions are for the right to officially recognize the union of two same-sex individuals, and this recognition does not harm anyone. Incest typically involves the sexual assault of minors, which certainly hurts people, and necrophilia involves either killing people, or digging people up from their graves. These actions both hurt people. You'll find that most sexual acts which do not exploit or harm others are permissible, regardless of your notion of normality.
Moishey, quite a valid arguemen i must say.
I totally agree with your first point.
On your second point, yeah, u probably misunderstood me. I stated the obvious about filling forms, etc to show that someone, changing or modifying existing laws affect everyone in the society, hence we shud all be concerned and not put up the stance of "I dont care as far as it doesnt bother me". I also buttressed my point by stating the fact that we live in a community. Also, the last time i checked, I dont see how sunday shopping in NS hurt anyone...infact, it helps to boost the economy, however, majority NS voted against it. BTW, U think the official recognition of gay unions doesnt affect anyone? Think again....i can give u several reasons how they affect (or hurt as u wud put it) us. This is the same society that my kids and urs wud grow up in....Furthermore, it's no brainer that when gay unions are preferred to heterosexual unions that the population growth is stunted and thus affects the economy. Why cant we keep our sexual fantasies and acts in the bedroom? Why do we have to officially recognise them? Very soon, we wud have to officially recognise 3some and 4some couples. And hey, incest is frowned on in the society...why? does it hurt anyone? I can also tell u that in today's society, over 70% of minors fantasize over sleeping with "over-aged daddies"....why dont u allow them? Someone said it's "property"..so?
Last edited by profiler on Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
It seems that a lot of people see nothing wrong with gay couples having the same benefits, but don't want to call them "married". Sounds fine with me, I never put much effort in terms as long as they get the same benefits, and the only difference in the definition is marriage is between a man and a woman, and a union is between two people of the same gender.
Since this is figured out, how does a gay couple get a divorse, or de-unioned?
Capebretoner, that's my point....do whatever u want in the bedroom...no one cares...but dont come out to redefine the laws cos u want to be recognised as a gaylord.
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:55 pm Post subject: Re: uhhh...
profiler wrote:
Moishey wrote:
A few points:
1. Hickorystick, oversimplifying the role of government to property rights leaves an inapplicable ideology. Should everyone be in charge of their own sewage, as long as it doesn't affect others? Well, perhaps its easier to have it run municipally. And, I hope protecting the environment is under the realm of citizien property rights - because the line about leaving the market to determine everything but property and personal protection fails in the environment, where the market is ill-equipped to deal with the issue, since there is no cost to degrading the environment, beyond ones own personal displeasure at looking at it, which is surely compensated by the money made from the degradation.
2. Profiler, your stand against homosexuality is odd. First, you're concerned with having to fill out a hetero/homo checkbox on your tax return... Then you're concerned that it shouldn't be encouraged because its not normal. Either this is the stand of some high-school homogenizer, or I'm misunderstanding - everything I do must be accepted as socially normal? Sounds a bit fascist. And your logical interpretation that gay unions should open the door to necrophilia and incest? Homosexual unions are for the right to officially recognize the union of two same-sex individuals, and this recognition does not harm anyone. Incest typically involves the sexual assault of minors, which certainly hurts people, and necrophilia involves either killing people, or digging people up from their graves. These actions both hurt people. You'll find that most sexual acts which do not exploit or harm others are permissible, regardless of your notion of normality.
Moishey, quite a valid arguemen i must say.
I totally agree with your first point.
On your second point, yeah, u probably misunderstood me. I stated the obvious about filling forms, etc to show that someone, changing or modifying existing laws affect everyone in the society, hence we shud all be concerned and not put up the stance of "I dont care as far as it doesnt bother me". I also buttressed my point by stating the fact that we live in a community. Also, the last time i checked, I dont see how sunday shopping in NS hurt anyone...infact, it helps to boost the economy, however, majority NS voted against it. BTW, U think the official recognition of gay unions doesnt affect anyone? Think again....this is the same society that my kids and urs wud grow up in....Furthermore, it's no brainer that when gay unions are preferred to heterosexual unions that the population growth is stunted and thus affects the economy. Why cant we keep our sexual fantasies and acts in the bedroom? Why do we have to officially recognise them? Very soon, we wud have to officially recognise 3some and 4some couples. And hey, incest is frowned on in the society...why? does it hurt anyone? I can also tell u that in today's society, over 70% of minors fantasize over sleeping with "over-aged daddies"....why dont u allow them? Someone said it's "property"..so?
If you are going to insist that homosexuality is a "sexual fantasy" please give us some reference to this. If this is the case why were there homosexuals in the past when this was frowned upon, I think that most of these people would of preferred to be hetro just so that they would not be ridiculed.
ver 70% of minors fantasize over sleeping with "over-aged daddies"....why dont u allow them?
First I've gotta say that I'm skeptical of your statistic there - some sort of source would be appreciated. Secondly, we as a society have recognized that minors can be coerced into sexual situations which they are not fully able to make decisions to keep them from harm. Thus, we protect them with laws.
And, to further Capebretoner's point, it really is ludicrous to insist that homosexuality is nothing but the culmination of an erotic fantasy. BDSM, roleplaying, etc, are fantasies. Homosexuality is a *sexuality*. To reduce the gay union/marriage debate to one of 'keeping sexual fantasy in the bedroom' is to imply that hetero unions are simply for procreation and erotic sex. There is much much more to the union of two people by law, than a proclamation of thier ability and willingness to engage in homosexual sex.
Also, your suggestion that homosexuals having unions harm you because you have to live in the same community as them - watch out - it sounds like bigotry to me. Do you not like gay people? Or do you not give them any credit for their announced sexuality?
To reiterate, incest relations hurt people because offspring are typically handicapped, and incest relations often involve the exploitation of one (or more) persons.
Lastly, who is saying that society is moving towards 'preferring' homo unions to hetero ones, thus jeapordizing our ability to sustain the population? I don't think heterosexual people are going to start getting into gay unions because they're available!
Just wondering, how do you define, negative and positive rights?
Sure:
A Positive right is a right, to be provided with something so that it is incumbent upon another to act.
A negative right which is a right to not be subject to the action of another. ther shoudl be no coercion to any action.
Some examples of positive rights:
The right to an education, places the claim on someone that they must teach. The right to housing places a claim on someone to build that home. The right to food implies that someone must grow that food.
Negative rights:
The right to life implies that no one has the right to harm you.
Basically postive rights proscribes action, while negative rights prescribes action.
____________ --
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Winston Churchill
Now here is the problem I have with the gay lobby:
Quote:
The Knights, adhering to church teaching, which is against homosexual marriage, cancelled a rental contract that had been signed, returned the couple's deposit and paid for both the rental of a new hall and the reprinting of wedding invitations after Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith complained that invitations listing the hall's address for their reception had been mailed.
That was in September, 2003. In October, the couple complained to the Human Rights Tribunal, which heard the case last week. A decision is not expected for months
The KofC went out of their way to accomidate the lesbian couple, but it seemed that was not good enough for them. I hate when people have to push the issue to such a degree. There has to be middle ground on these types of issues. I just hope that the liberal media gives Harper's view a fair voice.
____________ --
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Winston Churchill
All times are GMT - 3 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
