• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Powerful GOP lobbyist drafts bill to ban gay athletes from playing in the NFL

RiverDad said:
There is no right to not being offended, not being rejected, not being liked. There is a right to freedom of association. It is immoral to force associations onto people. Try to make a moral case for the morality of forcing associations onto unwilling people.
Click to expand...

No one is forcing anyone to be associated with the NFL.
 
Peter King said:
I am sorry, but anti-gay discrimination goes against human rights. That some idiot countries like Uganda think they have the right to discriminate against gays (or worse) does not change the fact that they are violating human rights with their horrible actions against gays.
Click to expand...

Again, that's YOUR country's perspective, not at all shared by the rest of the world. Some do, some don't.

Not to mention, I deny the existence of "human rights". Those would need to be recognised by the bulk of the entire species and that is not the case. Unless you're going to change your tune and argue for "God-given rights". Human rights is just more flowery speech politicians like to throw around.
 
clownboy said:
It not a human right to play in the NFL either. Not even a human right to have "the opportunity to play in the NFL". We're not talking human rights here. Quite simply it's one dude's fixation at play here and thus far no one that makes a difference in any party has taken on the legislation.
Click to expand...

No, the right to play in the NFL does not exist, not for gays and not for anyone. But denying someone the opportunity to play in the NFL, when that person is talented enough (and that a team wants to hire that player) purely on his sexual preference is ridiculous and almost a crime against anything that is decent.
 
Henrin said:
I don't honestly think you realize how stupid that comment is.
Click to expand...

I don't honestly think you comprehend the deep and pathetic idiocy of presuming absolutism in rights, and failing to comprehend the basis of legislation (the balancing of rights against each other).
 
Peter King said:
Denial of human rights by unjustly, immorally and illegally (IMHO) is not a right that is guaranteed by any law or treaty.
Click to expand...

What? What rights does the individual being discriminated against have in play here?
 
ecofarm said:
I don't honestly think you comprehend the deep and pathetic idiocy of presuming absolutism in rights, and failing to comprehend the basis of legislation (the balancing of rights against each other).
Click to expand...

Your fail is in thinking that one right gives into another or that somehow that train of thought even begins to make sense.
 
Henrin said:
Your fail is in thinking that one right gives into another or that somehow that train of thought even begins to make sense.
Click to expand...

When the foundation of all US law is within your grasp, we can continue debate.
 
Peter King said:
No, the right to play in the NFL does not exist, not for gays and not for anyone. But denying someone the opportunity to play in the NFL, when that person is talented enough (and that a team wants to hire that player) purely on his sexual preference is ridiculous and almost a crime against anything that is decent.
Click to expand...

What about the rights of all the team members who have no desire to have this man on their team? Why should they be forced into an association with this man so that you can feel good about your "enlightenment?"
 
ecofarm said:
When the foundation of all US law is within your grasp, we can continue debate.
Click to expand...

You have told me before you believe in natural rights, so why do you believe in this fallacy that all rights are absolute by default? Individuals rights don't get limited by other rights, but just don't naturally extend into the rights of someone else's person or property. You're mixing together rights arguments here from the natural and state created sides and making for one huge cluster****.
 
Henrin said:
You have told me before you believe in natural rights, so why do you believe in this fallacy that all rights are absolute by default?
Click to expand...

No right (in fact, nothing at all) is absolute. All rights are balanced against each other in the creation of US law.
 
ecofarm said:
The NFL is not a person with rights.
Click to expand...

So the people that run the NFL have no rights towards managing the NFL and deciding on who they will associate with? Interesting.
 
Henrin said:
So the people that run the NFL have no rights towards managing the NFL and deciding on who they will associate with? Interesting.
Click to expand...

They are free to be a part of the NFL or not. The NFL is not a person with rights. The NFL is an organization subject to a legal balancing of rights.
 
ecofarm said:
No right (in fact, nothing at all) is absolute. All rights are balanced against each other in the creation of US law.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I don't even think you understand rights at all. You jump around from topic to topic between rights arguments without even a care how they go together. First off, since you said before that you believe in natural rights there would be no such thing as a right to not be discriminated against, and therefore, nothing to consider here or balance. Second, rights don't balance each other, but stop where another persons rights begins. A balance would mean that one has to give in to the other, but it doesn't give in, it just didn't ever extend to that point.
 
Henrin said:
Sometimes I don't even think you understand rights at all.
Click to expand...

Like I give a ****. Your position is ignorant beyond repair.

Good day.
 
Peter King said:
No, the right to play in the NFL does not exist, not for gays and not for anyone. But denying someone the opportunity to play in the NFL, when that person is talented enough (and that a team wants to hire that player) purely on his sexual preference is ridiculous and almost a crime against anything that is decent.
Click to expand...

Meh, doesn't even rise to the level of the extraordinary. Team owners step in and nuke the selection of players their team management wants to hire all the time. For reasons that can be personal or business related. I don't think that is a hill you want to die upon.

Regardless, again, this legislation is a fantasy of a non-legislator and no legislator has signalled they would touch it with a ten foot pole.
 
ecofarm said:
Like I give a ****. Your position is ignorant beyond repair.

Good day.
Click to expand...

Of course, if you knew anything about natural rights you would know my argument is exactly right. Also, if you knew anything about the arguments put out by statists you would know that your argument about rights balancing is a statist argument.
 
Henrin said:
Sometimes I don't even think you understand rights at all. You jump around from topic to topic between rights arguments without even a care how they go together. First off, since you said before that you believe in natural rights there would be no such thing as a right to not be discriminated against, and therefore, nothing to consider here or balance. Second, rights don't balance each other, but stop where another persons rights begins. A balance would mean that one has to give in to the other, but it doesn't give in, it just didn't ever extend to that point.
Click to expand...

The behavior you're witnessing arises from a breakdown in reasoning. People who desire a certain conclusion try to backfill the logic so as to construct an argument which can support their desired conclusion. You on the other hand begin with a premise and build on that foundation until you can ARRIVE at a SUPPORTABLE conclusion.

Sound reasoning wins arguments. Flawed reasoning leads people to get frustrated and to abandon the argument. They get frustrated because they believe in the conclusion that they favor but they can't find ways to rebut your logical arguments. This happens a lot when conclusions are reached via emotion rather than through reason.

Liberals want everyone to love homosexuals. They don't give a damn about human rights. Look at how they have thrown the Right to Association into the gutter when it conflicts with their desire to have everyone be nice to everyone else. Politics driven by Pollyannish sentiments is a rat's nest of "reasoning."
 
ecofarm said:
They are free to be a part of the NFL or not. The NFL is not a person with rights. The NFL is an organization subject to a legal balancing of rights.
Click to expand...

An organization is an organized body of people with a particular purpose. This example here is an organization of team owners that have the right to decide who they will associate with as a group and for their individual teams.

Just because someone starts a business or is a member of an organization does not mean they don't have rights.
 
clownboy said:
Again, that's YOUR country's perspective, not at all shared by the rest of the world. Some do, some don't.

Not to mention, I deny the existence of "human rights". Those would need to be recognised by the bulk of the entire species and that is not the case. Unless you're going to change your tune and argue for "God-given rights". Human rights is just more flowery speech politicians like to throw around.
Click to expand...

Sure, there and there are also countries that discriminate against Jews, catholics, blacks, etc. Just because they do does not mean that a civilized country that is ruled by laws and treaties can allow an organization to discriminate against gays.

And you might deny human rights, but luckily a lot of people in the US believe in human rights and so does the supreme court when it struck down anti-black laws. And didn't the USA ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights?

Civil rights should include the right not to be discriminated against due to onces sexual preference.
 
RiverDad said:
What about the rights of all the team members who have no desire to have this man on their team? Why should they be forced into an association with this man so that you can feel good about your "enlightenment?"
Click to expand...

Yes, why not make this about giving bigots the right to not play on a team with gays. Yes, just like we should have not fought Hitler just because he wanted to live in a country with no Jews, communists, gypsies and we should respect the rights of people to not want to play on a team with blacks, criminals, Jews, American Italians, Canadians etc.

Why not make this about how we should all respect bigotry. Soon all the black players in the NBA will refuse to play in the same teams with whites, why not respect their desire to not be forced into an association with whites so that they can feel good about not being racist bigots.

(and it is not how I feel, just being somewhat sarcastic).
 
opendebate said:
Why does this idea freak men the **** out like this? It's not contagious, they're not gonna jump you when your back is turned, it doesn't mean your gay if gay guy looks at you. It makes no sense to me at all. It takes maturity to ignore it and go about your business. What a bunch of insecure little boys.
Click to expand...

So a hot lipstick chick doesn't offer to give you a thorough soap job at the YWCA after a brisk workout?

Why does porn keep LYING to me, dammit!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom