The declaration of independence, while not technically legally binding, states "they (the people) derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness."
Regardless of whether government back in the day thought homosexuality was evil, harmful, immoral, psychotic, etc, were gay people denied their liberty and pursuit of happiness?
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Did gay people have their rights violated?
the declaration cannot be applied to all humans. civilizations cannot exist without intolerance and are defined by what they exclude.
to include everyone is to have no identity at all and thus to unjustify the civilization's continued existence because... why stay in a society that isn't going to put your needs first? why not make your own of more similar people?
With all due respect, that's flawed logic. You can be inclusive and still have an identity. You act like if you are inclusive, suddenly the entire world spills into your community, but that's not the case. If China opened up their borders, would you move to China? No? Because even if they allow you, that doesn't mean you like their laws, their culture, etc. You can be distinct and inclusive.
And the declaration literally says "all men are created equal" so unless you mean to say "the declaration cannot be applied to all humans, instead, it is applied only to males" then I'm not sure even it agrees with you.
if you are inclusive without limit then yes. the entire world would come here and erase everything, take everything, consume everything.
china has carefully genocided all other languages within china. there used to be 27 other languages... now its just han chinese. without that they wouldn't be as chinese as they are today. and they would constantly be at war with themselves and unable to interact with the world
you think its just about immigration, its not. if the chinese had no "us vs them" mentality they wouldn't be able to reserve resource for their own people because they wouldn't KNOW what "own people" meant
I read your paragraph, I understood that part. I was making a point. You admit that despite the inclusiveness, there are other factors that would still cause you to not partake in that culture, because there are other factors than acceptance that are the foundation of a culture, demographic, region, etc.
And in my example the Chinese wouldn't leave, that wouldn't be inclusive and in my example the only hypothetical factor applied was that they'd be inclusive.
but the very act of being inclusive means the chinese would see their resources drown out as the government spend resources equally amongst the entire planet. without a "them" there is no "us"
so why spend on chinese? you wouldn't. you aren't getting this
The point about their resources is tangential and irrelevant. And there IS a them. YOU would be the them, as well as countless other communities and cultures that chose not to go to China. Quite frankly, it is you who is not getting this.
if the chinese nation didn't have view chinese as more valuable than foreigners you're right, nboody would got o china... because the chinese would leave and secede and break apart
a nation with no identity will have 1 of 2 things happen depending on what type of nation it is
1. it will be flooded with the world's population IF it is a superior place people want to live (china is not, america is)
or 2. it will break apart as the people within it seek to form new governments that do exclude others to regain their autonomy
It's jibberish if you view the response in a vacuum. You said "without a 'them' there is no 'us'." And I said in the scenario provided, you would be the "them."
And again, you're going off on a tangent, theorizing what you think would happen if China was more inclusive, that's not even what this discussion is about. It's about the fact that you can be inclusive without abandoning the culture that has developed in a given region.
To say it yet again, and simply: China has a culture. You don't like that culture. If China said "come on over, we'll include you." You'd said "no thanks, I don't like that culture." And those who DO like that culture WOULD go there, thus, their culture more or less remains. Because simply being inclusive doesn't mean everyone will want to partake.
According to the Bible which this country was founded on homosexuals are an abomination. So no. They did not have their right violated. They weren't killed just shamed. Not win but not a loss
Someone already made that point. A gay person being able to love someone of their same sex isn't the same someone being able to have sex with an animal.
Of course not. Otherwise nothing should be illegal as everything could possibly make someone happy. But there's an existential difference to your potential right to robbery than to your potential right to love.
You seem to be of the stance "if it's bad, it's justified to restrict it." Guns can be bad, gun crime can be bad, but I assume you aren't in support of restricting peoples right to guns. Because even if it can be bad, people have the right to own them. Government shouldn't be trying to somehow achieve perfection where they get JUST the right amount of regulation, and inevitably start tramping on people's rights. This country was founded on freedom, and their actions were indisputably anti-freedom.
But homosexuality is? Could I not apply the same logic and say that homosexuality is just a medium, but that medium can be used in condemnable ways. So if guns cannot be bad, and thus, should not be subject to regulation, why is it okay if homosexuality was?
If you believe that homosexuality is immoral and a detriment to society as a whole, then it’s within the realm of society to make it illegal. Incest is also illegal. Prostitution is illegal.
What do you mean "let's try this again"? I'm in agreement with you on that. Perhaps you should tried again is you reading what was said. I'm an advocate for civil discussion but if you want to snarky I won't just lie down.
And free speech is protected by law. The right to peaceably assemble is protected by law. But there are things you can't say, there are places you can't peaceably assemble. And there are countless other examples as to things that are protected by law that or infringed upon. You act like the system is pure and u tainted. Can me and my friends peaceably assemble in your bedroom, in your home, on your private properly? No? Granted, I'm not saying we should be able to. I'm simply giving you a clear example.
A more reasonable example would be our right to bear arms, and some arms being illegal. If this is "protected by law", yet still illegal, then what's your point? You can say its protected by law but the law's protection clearly isn't working.
you keep trying to equate an inanimate object (a gun) with human activity. That makes no sense. You're explaining that some human behavior - like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater should be made illegal because it's damaging to society.
The people who made anti-gay laws did so because the society said that homosexual behavior was damaging to society.
Yes. In the same way that a person can partake in gunmanship and do evil with it, a person can partake in homosexuality and do evil with it. That doesn't make the gun, or homosexuality, evil. And you have yet to explain why it is, merely asserted that it is.
And the primary point isn't even "gay people are like guns" the point is that their rights were restricted. Your response was "oh well its justified because society agreed its evil" as if society can't agree guns are evil (again, because apparently I have to reiterate myself, I'm not in agreement with that notion. But people can and have asserted such). Ironically, you're literally expressing the SAME thing here in your last response. "The people who made anti-gay laws did so because society said that homosexuality behavior was damaging to society." And how many people of today are saying that gunmanship is damaging to society?
And yes, in response to your remark "guns are protected by law" I gave you an example (implying the "fire scenario") where something that is protected by law actually was not protected by law.
holy shit you are dense. To them, the entire act of homosexuality is damaging to society. So yeah, using your dumb example, if you are a homosexual and never engage in any homosexual acts, behavior, etc then you wouldn't really be in violation of the law, would you.
No, YOU are dense. I understand that some people think homosexuality, as a whole, is damaging to society. You keep arguing against things that literally aren't being argued. My point is that they're wrong, and it's more akin to gunmanship. It can be done in damaging ways, but in most cases it isn't.
In the SAME way that they (wrongfully) think that the entirety of homosexuality is damaging, there are people who think the entirety of gunmanship is damaging. And just because society agrees homosexuality, or gunmanship, is wrong, doesn't mean people's rights weren't violated if they restrict those aspects of society.
You already admit that people can be wrong, as you indicated when you explained that owning a gun isn't evil. So just because a portion of society agrees homosexuality is wrong, it doesn't make them right. And it doesn't make it okay for them to have restricted their rights.
Yes, you can. People wrongfully assert that guns as a whole are damaging to society. You wrongfully assert that homosexuality as a whole is damaging to society.
It would be wrong for people to restrict people's access to guns, and it would be wrong for people to restrict people's access to homosexuality.
Okay well I guess it fairly clear I'm talking with a child.
I'd also like to point out that under your logic, as long as it's damaging to society, then restricting it (and subsequently people's rights to it) is justified. So I assume you're you're for the abolishing of fast food and other unhealthy foods? And a plethora of other unhealthy or damaging things people do all the time? Drinking? Smoking?
Or perhaps just because something might be damaging to society (which homosexuality isn't in the first place), people still have a right to them.
Quite frankly you're starting to sound like China, restricting people's right to social media and video games.
Then this entire discussion was literally pointless. You think I thought they tossed a coin to make the law or something? What sentient being would think their rationale behind making the law would be anything but "it's bad for people to do it?" We apparenrlt spent all that time discussion things so you could tell me something I, and virtually every other adult already knows?
If not for it's damaging/bad, what did you think I thought their rationale behind the law was? 🤨
I mean, was I supposed to interpret your stance as "he is just explaining that the government made a law because the government thinks doing it is bad." People don't just go around stating obvious things, lol. So quit frankly either your behavior is abnormal or this claim of yours is questionable.
No one was killed or put in jail for being gays. The parades are just vulgar and that is why they were not allowed. They used to be in closet and people some what knew they were gay.
I'm not. I'm asking specifically with modernity and the future in mind. People often succumb to the normalcy bias and don't see things for what they are, sometimes a different but similar/familiar example can help those under the normalcy bias to see things more clearly.
Uh, sort of. A demographic is a portion of population that have a mutual characteristic. Gay people are a demographic. Doctors are a demographic. Gamers are a demographic. Dancers are a demographic. Depressed people are a demographic. So on, and so forth.
Doctors aren't either, or baseball players, lol. With all due respect, man, you're seriously mistaken about what a demographic is and how they're used.
Okay I was trying to make the point that asserting random things about people is dumb but when I assert something dumb and random about you, you more or less agree with it, lmfao.
But yeah if you want to believe I think gay people are victims like people of color" then be my guest and live in whatever fantasy world you have going on there, I'm not going to entertain it.
I'm not saying it "as if" it's like that, you're forming some really weird conclusion that quite frankly I have no idea how you come up with.
Like, you think the person has to be a person of color in order to have their rights violated? Is that why you think I'm saying it "as if they're people of color"? Like if their rights are violated then they must be people of color because people not of color can't have their rights violated so if I mention someone having their rights violated then they must be people of color?
Because if they restrict the rights of one demographic, they can restrict the rights of other demographics. And even that aside, our government literally breaks its own rules all the time and there is no accountability. They seemingly can do wharves they want.
And people could argue that Judeo Christian values are dependent on many of the most common moral perspectives, which isn't inherently theistic (and thus, IS independent of Christianity).
As an analogy, just because car companies put steering wheels in cars doesn't mean that steering wheels are implicitly dependent on cars, as steering wheels on boats far precedes them. And even if they didn't, there's no reason that you couldn't use a steering wheel for something other than a car. Lastly, even if something is made to be intended for one thing doesn't necessarily mean it always should be. Especially in cases where that thing is a country which governs the laws and regulations of people (as opposed to like one thing being made for one family's private affairs).
And @Asker: Where does it say "this applies to white Christians who follow the bible?"
violence is morally neutral. its what you build with it that determines right or wrong. christians killed savages. and with good reason. i read an account this week from some brazilian cannibals holding a captive in 1550. those savages got what they deserved. they needed some jesus, and a beheading.
before christianity cannibalism and human sacrifice was the norm EVERYWHERE
don't know. im an atheist, i could care less. all i know is that ideas don't look like their textbook format in real life so i could care less what letters they use exactly
and i know christianity is the perfect blend of violence and civilization building to promote longterm stability of a society while maintaining power over others
Well people didn't thunk murder, rape, theft, and a plethora of other things were okay back then. They were just more common. Without the notion of Jesus or God, people still had a sense or morality. The world was simply more brutal, back then. And I'm sure Christianity helped greatly in that regard. But that doesn't meant the morality is dependent on Christianity. You, yourself, are an atheist. I assume you don't think it is moral to kill someone for accidentally spilling your beer mug? Or raping a girl you're attracted to who isn't attracted to you?
