Why Fox News Is So Entertaining Sometimes...

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
41

classic liberal. Libertarian.

I don’t like rights either, but it’s an unfortunate side effect of liberty. People start crying for all kinds of rights, like they deserve them. It doesn’t help when the government gives in.

My personal opinion is that it’s better to ignore nuts. They are doing what any of us do (whether we admit it or not) they wanted attention.

We gave them that attention. They win.

I’m speaking from the place of responsibility + rights. They should be accountable, but in what regard? I think the best way to hold them responsible is to ignore them. They don’t get to spout their opinion if no one listens.

42

Let me say this - any right can be abused. That it is or can be abused is not a defense of that right, nor does it require that those that will defend that right should defend its abuse. Rights that are sacred are just dicta. To me, this is not the thinking persons rights, nor the thinking person’s democracy.

Ucci - I like to tie people up, and be tied up during sex. Occasionally. Don’t like costumes or any of that other stuff.

So, you are conversing with a bona fide deviant. Just so you know. I fail to see how any right should come into play. This assumes that every human activity is subsumed by rights. Prove to me why they should be, please. It is very american, and very liberal to think so.

So, here I am, wearing my deviance on my sleeve. (I’m not into pain, by the way - in either direction). Still want to talk?

43

scythe - did the people at the funeral have any choice here? Are they expected to be stony and rational at that time? If your son were to die for the entire country, would it not matter that your country allowed this?

Last night, there were several Navy guys in the restaurant. In uniform. Young guys on leave. I bought them a round - with cash - I was not bartending - I payed. I do not support the current war - I am adamant about that, with strongly-held opinions. So what?

I should have bought them all dinner.

I have the right to talk to them, and tell them my views on the war. I did not. I bought them all drinks. I am not a punk.

44 
Well, neither do I. In a perfect world, people would keep this sort of thing to themselves out of a sense of decorum and respect for other folks and the culture they were raised in- they wouldn't be beaten to death because of whom they are suspected to enjoy sex with, and similarly they wouldn't define themselves as a 'kind of person' based on who they like to have sex with, or how.

I’m sorry, can you ask me this again? It seems like an important question, but I’m just not getting the hang of what you’re asking me here. : )

Pfft, course I do.  Not that it's anybody's business, but something small like that isn't exactly going to put me off my lunch.
45

Ucci - My point is that context counts. There is a difference between taking out an ad in the local paper and shouting at funeral attendees. The ideas may be expressed, but that does not mean that they can be expressed anywhere. The law establishing the 500-foot buffer is not unconstitutional. If it were a five-mile buiffer, it would also not be unconstitutional, and scythe would have nothing to defend. His precious rights would remain intact.

If I tie up a woman and have sex with her in the park, as the English are so fond of, that is not protected expression. But if I do the same thing at home, it is not public expression at all. I do not need a right to do this.

If I have sex with a minor, I have commtted a crime. The First Amendment does not come into play. This crime is not (yet) defined by rights, but by the public good alone.

If I hold hands with a man, walking down the street, I have made no statement - I am simply holding the hand of a man. There is no right to do this, nor is one needed.

We are currently in a political environment wherein every act is interpreted by rights. This is folly.

Do I have the right to be gay? No. No one does, and no one needs to have that right, if you read the constitution. Do gay people have the right to marry? No. No gay person has that right, nor do they need to, if you read the constitution. Rights have become a sham and a scam.

Are you offended at the notion of gay marriage? You have the right to be offended, but not the right to not be offended.

But often, americans think they have the right not to be offended. This is rights gone haywire.

Rights, like freedom of expression, should have remained rights against the state - they have become rights against each other. That is more “perverse” than a man having sex with a man.

46

At what point do we accept that it is about power? The rightness or wrongness and freedom of expression depends soley on who has the biggest club. Do these dipshits have a right to protest? Sure. But me and a few miilion others might have something to say where that protest is to take place. - and it isn’t at a funeral. ANY funeral. They’re welcome to go door to door giving away their little flyers, but there is a place and then there is a place.

If such a thing happened in my family, there would be a number of funerals, and I’d be happy to defend the dead ones’ freedom of speech - just not at my family’s expense.

There is civilized behaviors all carefully defined, based on the most broad reaching philosophies - and then there is just plain common sense.

47

Oh, heck yes. I especially like your points about the difference between being within one’s rights, and being a punk. One of the major reasons I don’t like to talk about rights is that they lead one to think in terms of “What can I get away with” and not “How should I behave”.

Well, you don't need a right to do anything at all, I would argue- people do whatever the hell they want until they are made to understand that they must not, or must do something different.  For the record, I'm against sodomy laws and other sorts of laws that restrict private behavior, even though I feel homosexuality is immoral.

Offended at the notion? That phrasing tends to make it a matter of personal weakness, a lot of the time. I think gay marriage is immoral, and I think, that since most people agree with me on this, the culture ought to be preserved from it- but I don’t pee my pants or grit my teeth in rage when the topic is raised, no. :wink: I think society has the right to define it’s own mores, and I think that courts forcing culture to accept things that the masses don’t want to accept is extremely immoral, much moreso than gay marriage.
A right to not be offended? I’m not sure on that. Apparently a neighborhood has a right to force people living in it to mow their lawn, or not have objects they consider eyesores cluttering it up. The people have decided that certain words and actions shouldn’t appear on television. These all sound kind of like ‘the right to not be offended’ to me, and I support that sort of thing.

Incidentally, I don't think gays should be barred from having wedding ceremonies, claiming vows, or living in monogamous relationships with each other, or referring to themselves as married. I think Churches should be free to perform or refuse to perform such ceremonies, and I think companies and other institutions should be free to recognize or not recognize such couplings as marriages.  They can do all those things now, in all 50 states, so far as I know.
48

Tentative - democracy is not at odds with your analysis of power, but a constitution lays out the groundrules - that is its purpose. “Might makes right” is easily interpreted in too simplistic a way, especially if it is taken out of context. The context here is our social arrangements - and these extend even beyond any one document. Power shifts like sand. It changes.

They say that the President of the US is the most powerful person on earth, but that must be seen in the context of Richard Nixon. And popularity polls. And the separation of powers. And a lot of other things.

No right is absolute - and to suggest that we have to live with shit like this due to some right is incorrect. That is the crux of my argument with scythe. Rights play out in a social milieu.

As you say, these kooks have this right, but shortly before, they would have had the right to do this even closer to the funeral. Rights are flexible - not flexible enough, always, but flexible.

One potential problem is that while we protect the rights of groups like this, we cannot protect them from vigilanteism. That’s not a dirty word in every case, in my view. Some neighborhood watch groups are one step away from vigilantes (and were so more in the past, when they were a new thing in many places in america), and have sometimes been less distant than that. If we are inflexible with rights, we get a Magna Charta, a revolution, or, sometimes, a lynch mob.

My further point is that we can philosophise all we want (and who likes to do that more than I?), but sometimes, enough is enough. Just as we had a Vietnam hangover for years, we can have a Waco hangover - too much tolerance for groups like this can be the result. Maybe it’s time to take an aspirin and get on with it - stop these dopes.

49

Ucci - the neighborhood thing is about private associations - in almost every case. There have been a few cases where non-associated neighbors brought suit on grounds that property values were affected, but I know of no successful ones. But it is about property values, and not offensiveness.

The offensive-word laws are just stupid, in my view. I know of no secondgraders that don’t know all those words. There are limits, but the market can decide those (if I don’t sound too conservative in saying so). Either way, these laws propose that we have the unmitigated right to turn on a television and not be offended. I am offended every time I turn on a television. So what? This notion that the public owns the airwaves is stupid, and fallacious in practise.

The issue of the courts is a bogus one - either they interpret the law correctly or they don’t. I happen to think Rowe v. Wade is an abomination of legal reasoning, but that is a technical, and not a political problem. I also support abortion rights (if they have to be rights at all - I’m stuck with some - it’s the system).

Gay marriage is about legal and finacial rights. Personally, I think gay couples should be granted those rights, and that marriage should be none of the state’s business. So, technically, I am not for gay marriage, but for gay civil unions. I’m for straight civil unions, too, then. We can leave marraige to churches.

But this brings up another problem. If rights are absolute, there is no place for morality. We have a multifaceted approach to civil and criminal law - a hodgepodge, in fact - this is why so much is left to politics, which is okay, but this is also why we have a culture war - it’s not the fault of the liberals, but of the “system”, if you can call it that.

50

faust

The problem I have with this is that it's not a granting of rights at all. Any business already has the right to treat gay couples like married couples [i]if they want to. [/i] Insurance companies, hospitals, and so on, all set their own policies. Saying that they [i]must[/i] treat gay couples as married couples isn't an extension, but a restriction.  It's compelling people to act against their morals- and not for a remarkable gain. 

Sure it is, but how much pragmatism can you bring to a thing like this? Even if you let it be completely free-market driven, the reason certain things don't appear on TV is because people don't want them to appear there. Whether it's Neilson or the FCC that decides it is really no big deal- so long as people have good means to influence their government. I'm trying to set precedent heer- you can say we don't have a right to not be offended, and by the Constitution you're right, but there sure are a lot of laws and practices that seem to serve no other purpose.  Excersizing restrictions is certainly part of the rights of a free people, if we must stick to the idea that there are such things as rights. What makes it difficult, is that the idea of 'community standards' as a right is by nature not individualistic, and it's individualism that most of our written-down rights were intended to address, it seems. 

It's a technical, political problem if you don't have a moral problem with the outcome. And yeah, I agree that the law behind it was bad, even I can see that, and I'm no lawyer.
51

Gobbo, you are just…wrong. I have personally attended functions that this group has protested 3 times in my life. At none of these functions was homosexuality an issue: one was a speech by Janet Reno, one was a Bill Clinton/Bob Dole joint (and not the joint you’re thinking of) presentation and the other was my law school graduation.

This group, like you, believes that America is doomed. This group, like you, attempts to expose the flaws that it sees. This group, like you, desires to educate Americans regarding those flaws. This group’s “homosexuality” banner is no different than your “9/11 conspiracy” banner. The members, like you, wave it hoping that others will come to see things their way.

These people don’t care whether the soldier who died was gay; they only care that his or her death may promote their agenda.

You don’t believe me?

At my law school graduation the Phelps’ group was holding all types of signs claiming that “lawyers are fags” and the like. Was he protesting because he believes that “lawyers are fags”? No, absolutely not. Fred Phelps, the ringleader, and several members of his congregation, are former lawyers who were disbarred in the states in which they were licensed.

52

I love your reasoning here, Ucci. The problem, I think, is that some of these rights that are granted by these businesses are only granted because they are sometimes implicitly, legally obligated to do so. Society, not necessarily Smith’s Invisible Hand, says if you do not permit us right X, we will not pay you. Society has the force of the law behind it. Those marginalized are generally not asking for more, simply the same right to assert the force of the law as a counter to free market practices.

53

yopele

Oh, definitely. That, or because they stand to make money by doing so. But I don’t understand what you’re saying about the marginalized asking for the force of law. IF they’re a minority (especially an extreme minority such as homosexuals), then by definition they don’t have that force- whether you mean by voting with a ballot, or with a paycheck. Constitutionally and economically, there’s no reason why they should. Am I misunderstanding you?

54

I don’t think you’re misunderstanding me. I just think we reach different conclusions. These companies only became legally obligated to act because the majority was looking after the majority - as it should. Self-interest is very important, IMO. But, meanwhile, the laws were (perhaps unintentionally) constructed to protect the majority to the exclusion of the minority, which shouldn’t constitutionally happen. But it did because the voice of the minority was in this instance weak to the point of being non-existent. So, technically, the constitutional protections that should have extended to everyone (or very nearly) did not because the minority was essentially a non-entity, ie, married homosexuals didn’t exist.

So when the businesses choose not to extend the same rights to these marginalized individuals they are slipping through legal loopholes, because they can. I don’t have a problem with this slipping action per se. But when I see people using the law as a sword to harm those whose lifestyle; which is, strictly speaking, potentially harmful only to oneself; he or she doesn’t condone, I find the economics of the issue to be somewhat moot. And one can follow the law and still do tremendous harm.

Where’s morality in this equation?

If you don’t want to serve homosexuals in your establishment, that’s one thing. But when it comes to something like allowing a life-partner to visit his or her dying mate in a hospital, anything other than complete aquiesence to the extent that a legal mate would be allowed is just animus. The law is flexible, equity even moreso. Morality needs to get its act straight. :slight_smile:

55

Uccisore - I find it difficult to believe that you are unaware of what I am talking about - it’s not about businesses. It’s power of attorney, the right to pull the plug on life support and sign for procedures when the patient (spouse ) cannot, inheritance and probation of estates, tax laws - you don’t know about these issues?

My point about the courts is that people tend to see them as “legislative” or “activist” when they rule a way we don’t like, and just fine when they do. In reality, that knife cuts both ways.

56 
 Well, first one would need to ascertain just how often this sort of thing happens. I've visited dying people in the hospital that I wasn't related to at all- as far as I know, if the family says it's ok, then it's ok.  If the family [i]doesn't want [/i]one's homosexual partner to visit him in the hospital...well, I'm not sure how that should be decided, but it's a good deal more complex than the impersonal hospital making that decision. Not only are we talking about a minority of people, we're talking about a minority of situations even among those people. 
 The problem is that we have no moral basis for making such a change, and plenty of moral basis not to. Seriously, what's the argument? That homosexual couples are just as moral and valid as heterosexual couples? That has yet to be proven, and most people would disagree if you put it to a vote.  That, while homosexual couples aren't just as moral, people have the right to engage in them if they want to, and shouldn't have to put up with any unique consequences for that choice?* Once again, unproven, and once again, most would disagree.  Now, an individual is free to [i]take the stance [/i] that homosexual unions are A-ok, and I'm certainly not trying to make a argument from authority or population here.  You're right, everyone else is wrong, fine fine, sure sure. I feel that way about some stuff too.  But that attitude doesn't translate at all well to [i]lawmaking[/i] in this country, and with good reason. 


* That's an important distinction, right there, that needs to be explored. People who choose to be in homosexual relationships know the consequences they can expect- they know the ways they are different than normal relationships, and they know the limitations going in. They aren't persecuted in abitrary, spiteful ways, they simply [i]aren't considered married. [/i] Only if homosexuals are utterly compelled by forces behind their control and behind treatment to form these kinds of bonds would this be any sort of 'discrimination', and I certainly don't believe that to be the case.

EDIT to FAUST: I address that somewhat above. My understanding is that these issues tend to only become issues when the family objects to things like inheritence. I can leave everything to my cat if I want- and everything goes to my cat as long as I was demonstrably competant, and the family doesn’t protest. Do families overwhelmingly protest the idea of a homosexual leaving his stuff to his partner? If so, then that says something about how people want American culture to be, which should be respected.

57

Like I said, I like your logic. While I don’t agree with your ultimate conclusion, I think Faust is doing a fine job of disabusing you of the rightousness of it - so you and I can discuss something else. I too find the quoted point an important one, and one I’m glad you raised. But because I think the finer points might be better raised in another thread I’ll attempt to limit my comments.

Do you think you choose to be heterosexual? I don’t think I do. But that doesn’t mean that I couldn’t choose to pursue a relationship with a man - I admit it sounds somewhat repulsive to me, but so did sex with a 40-year-old woman at one time.

Presumably, people marry because they love one another. Love is at least sometimes not thought about in depth. So, in the odd instance where one doesn’t enter a homosexual relationship with forethought, how could he or she really understand the legal limitations of becoming involved in such a relationship? And while ignorance of the law generally isn’t an excuse, should ignorance of equal protection under it be excused?

58

Ucci - what about the argument that I should have the right to designate one person to inherit without unnecessary probate costs and procedures? My family could object to all manner of things regarding a spouse. I don’t want my wishes denied, and neither do you. Why should I have this just because my spouse would only be a woman? It doesn’t affect you if I’m gay, but only me. Who knows? I may decide to go that route. At least I’ll be able to dance, and wear any shoes I want.

The stereotypes don’t matter. Extending these rights is just a more efficient and less costly way to run a country. They’re going to have the sex, anyway. Why we would want to deny them rights we have at times when they are at their most vulnerable is beyond me. It doesn’t hurt me in any way to extend these rights, nor does it hurt you. You are bothered by a mere idea here. It’s real life to them.

Why don’t we just abolish marriage, if there are no legal or financial ramifications? I suppose it’s all about love. It never was. Marriage is a legal contract that establishes certain rights. There are more gays than eskimos in this country. Why can’t we abrogate the rights of Eskimos? They are such a tiny minority.

Ucci - I regard you as a reasonable and honorable man - if you disagree, you disagree. But I think you don’t really. That’s a personal comment, not related to the rest of my post. But I think it’s true. If you say it’s not, I’ll say you’re lying.

No, I won’t.

I understand, I think, that you have a legitimate moral concern here. And I agree that the gay “community” hasn’t always helped itself by the image it portrays. But I do not think this matters. I uphold this idea not so much as a friend to gays, but as a more efficient and less costly way for the state to do business. That moral sensibilities are offended is not reason enough to deny this right - that is not, in my own morality, any real harm. That might be where we really differ.

59

funny someone who is against rights is for gay rights…

meh, oh well.

60

faust

First of all, calling the partner a spouse is very presumptive. We could make all sorts of discriminatory charges if the attitude we take is "These are married people who aren't being treated like other married people".  But their status as 'married people' is the thing in question.  Second, my point isn't that these aren't infringements or inconveniences- they certainly are.  My point is that they are predictable, repeatable consequences to the act of choosing to life a certain lifestyle.  A heterosexual couple who chooses not to marry at all faces the very same problems, and I wager there are more of them then there are homosexual partnerships.  There is no right for one's actions to be consequence free. 

 And that's just plain not true.  If I was morally neutral on the issue, and simply messing with homosexuals out of spite, then sure.  But the fact is, me and most other people find homosexuality to be immoral- not just immoral, but odious.  There is no ground to extend the benefits you're talking about without deciding the lifestyle is acceptable. And yes, pushing for the acceptance of something someone finds abominable does hurt that person- just as walking around naked in public 'hurts' everyone forced to put up with it. 

We could if we wanted to, I suppose. I think the much more illustrative question is [i]why haven't we[/i]. Again, saying that homosexuality is as morally neutral as one's race is terribly presumptive. If I could agree about that, of course I'd agree about everything else.

I don’t disagree with passion, and I see the coherence in what you’re saying. As I said, it all seems to hang together on the presumption that homosexuality is morally Ok, which ends the conversation before it starts. Also, even if I ended up thinking it was ok, the fact that most people don’t still counts for a lot when it comes to the law.

Honestly, this is something I don’t understand. I consider economics to be basically a form of divination, and I’ve never been good at fortune telling. :slight_smile: You can tell me how allowing gay marriage is more effecient than not if you want to, but consider this prior warning that it may well go over my head.
As long as we’re having a heart to heart, I hold my ideas as primarily cultural concerns and not moral ones. I think my arguments are the correct ones, but the reason I have any passion to them is because I know and understand the kind of people and communities that don’t want homosexuality to be a part of public Americana. They aren’t the vicious bastards they have been painted to be- certainly not the Phelps stripe. The homosexual movement is a product of, and a precursor to, all sorts of changes in American culture that are simply ugly to me- and not just me.