If you care about civil rights you should be a Republican - Page 4

MC.no.spin · 01-21-08, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by new coup for you

...it's a Civil Right.

So are you only saying Republicans support Civil Right's when it's popular? Like after the Democrats have won the battle?

back up, why is it a Civil Right?

Billo_Really · 01-21-08, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC.no.spin

back up, why is it a Civil Right?

What is your point?

MC.no.spin · 01-21-08, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

What is your point?

If two men want to live together and call themselves married, they can. No one will stop them. This is their freedom. This is their right. Try doing that in other places, other times, and you'll quickly find out what civil rights are.

Gender composition of couples the states and the federal government choose to privilege have distinct purposes. Two men living together does not serve those purposes.

Further, if gays want to earn the respect of government leaders as to their ability to uphold the point of a marriage and adoption (fidelity, proper raising of children), why don't they show some of those traits in their gatherings in public?

Don't take my word for it, read this gay man's blog:

Quote:

Gay Leaders Should Demand Folsom Street Fair Prevent Children from Attending
Posted by GayPatriotWest at 7:57 pm - October 2, 2007.
Filed under: Gay Adoption, Freedom, Gay Politics, Gay Marriage

Pretty much a libertarian on how people act out their sexuality, I would normally have little to say about this past weekend’s Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco. The fair, billed as “the grand daddy of all leather events” takes place every year in San Francisco and features scantily clad and fully nude men as well as public displays of sexuality, particularly the S & M variant. It even features a man “masturbating in public.

Leather and S & M aren’t my thing, but if that’s how guys (& gals) want to express their sexuality, well, that’s their choice.

It’s one thing, however, for adults to express their sexuality as they see fit, it’s quite another to bring children, particularly toddlers into such displays. Yesterday, Michelle Malkin reported that one gay couple brought their twin two-year-old daughters to the event clad in a “a leather-studded harness.” This couple even decked the toddlers in “black leather collars purchased from a pet store.“

I agree with those there who “said children should not be allowed inside.“

If gay leaders are serious about promoting adoption in our community, they then should join me and those fairgoers who believe it is “inappropriate to have children at the event.” By taking a stand against this behavior, they will make it clear that they understand the responsibilities which inhere in raising children.

They will also make it clear that not all gay people support the sexual license so prevalent in the gay (particularly the gay male world). Such public opposition would help Americans recognize that we see our sexuality as more than mere physical gratification, but as a force which can serve as the foundation for strong families.

Gay leaders should not mince their words in criticizing parents who bring children to such gatherings as the Folsom Street Fair. Let those who adults who wish to attend do so and express themselves as they see fit. But, let’s also understand the distinction between that freedom of sexual expression and the responsibilities of parenting.

If we gay people believe ourselves worthy of the privileges of marriage and adoption, we need to show publicly that we recognize such distinctions. It is inappropriate for children to attend a sexually-themed celebration.

I hope that gay leaders will join me in criticizing the fair for allowing children to attend and demanding that, at future celebrations, it limit attendance to those over 18.

- B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)

Gay Patriot » Gay Marriage

SouthernDemocrat · 01-21-08, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC.no.spin

That is one issue that is not just a Republican view. More than half of the population respects the sanctity of marriage and says that gay marriage is not acceptable.

Even California says no. That says a lot. In 2000, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 22, an initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California.

If you are going to start a thread that claims that Republicans are better supporters of Civil Rights than Democrats are, you might want to start by learning what a Civil Right is, and the philosophy that Civil Rights are based in.

For example, you are arguing that gay marriage is not a civil right because a majority of the population is against it. If majority opinion were how civil rights were derived, then segregation and poll taxes would have been perfectly acceptable as the majority of southerners at the time supported them.

What you don't seem to get is that you are not describing Civil Rights, you are describing Tyranny of the Majority, which is exactly what the constitution is designed to protect the individual from.

You cannot arbitrarily deny a right or privilege to an individual or group simply because the majority of voters believe that right or privileged should not be extended to that individual or group. For example, a drivers license is a privilege. However, while you can deny 10 year olds that privilege because of an overriding concern (in this case public safety), you cannot deny a minority that privilege even if 99% of that states voters does not want them to have it.

Liberty is defined as your ability to do as you want extends so far as to not impede another individuals ability to do the same. The question for same sex marriage is not whether the majority of voters supports it or not, its whether granting gays and lesbians the same legal recognition in terms of marital recognition that the rest of us enjoy would impede upon the rights of anyone else.

For example, if the lesbian couple up the street were to get married, would that in anyway impede upon my rights or my wife's rights? Of course not, it would not have any effect on us. Therefore, there is no constitutional standing to deny them that privilege under the law.

Thats how Civil Rights and Liberties work, and thats why Social Conservatives are generally on the wrong side of them.

MC.no.spin · 01-21-08, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

What you don't seem to get is that you are not describing Civil Rights, you are describing Tyranny of the Majority, which is exactly what the constitution is designed to protect the individual from.

You cannot arbitrarily deny a right or privilege to an individual or group simply because the majority of voters believe that right or privileged should not be extended to that individual or group. For example, a drivers license is a privilege. However, while you can deny 10 year olds that privilege because of an overriding concern (in this case public safety), you cannot deny a minority that privilege even if 99% of that states voters does not want them to have it.

I understand that and was simply pointing out there was no "right wing" assertion to make on the subject, NOT defining what a civil right is. See my post above as regards the reasons I don't see it as "not affecting the rest of the population."

Alex · 01-21-08, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC.no.spin

Yes I am. We happen to have a perfect record on preventing terrorist attacks since 9/11, and in asking you for a name of an innocent person who lost his civil rights because of the Patriot Act, you failed to name one who actually wasn't involved in illegal terrorist activities. Case closed.

The only way to get liberals to focus on terrorists would be to convince them that the terrorists are interfering with a woman's right to choose or that commercial jetliners exploding in midair are a threat to America's wetlands

"The USA Patriot Act allows the government to find out which books and Internet sites a person has seen. It also lets investigators secretly search someone's home and monitor people's phone calls and e-mail, all in the name of fighting terrorism.

Now, a New Jersey town being sued for kicking homeless people out of a train station claims the Patriot Act allows it to do that as well."

Source: http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/patriot_act_used_against_homeless_under_fire.htm

ARealConservative · 01-21-08, 07:18 PM

The word "rights" is the real nature of the problem

A political party doesn't care about rights, they care about viability - which is often times directly opposed to the concept of rights.

No politician cares about rights as much as Dr. Paul, and he is running as a republican, so in a sense, I do agree with the thread title.

SouthernDemocrat · 01-21-08, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC.no.spin

I understand that and was simply pointing out there was no "right wing" assertion to make on the subject, NOT defining what a civil right is. See my post above as regards the reasons I don't see it as "not affecting the rest of the population."

I read your post. However, I see nothing to indicate how in and of itself, granting same sex couples legal marriage recognition, or some equivalent institution such as a Civil Union, would impact the rights of others.

Say a gay couple up the street were to get married, and say they adopted a child, how would that affect you and your family?

MC.no.spin · 01-21-08, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

"The USA Patriot Act allows the government to find out which books and Internet sites a person has seen. It also lets investigators secretly search someone's home and monitor people's phone calls and e-mail, all in the name of fighting terrorism.

Now, a New Jersey town being sued for kicking homeless people out of a train station claims the Patriot Act allows it to do that as well."

Source: http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/... is under fire

It wasn't a whole town claiming that, it was an attorney representing the suburb who threw out a dozen reasons the train station could throw out the homeless man, and this was one of them.

While some of you may think a train station should allow the homeless to harbor there, I feel they have a right to throw them out.

Quote:

The U.S. Justice Department also criticized Summit's use of the law.

"That represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Patriot Act is," spokesman Kevin Madden said Wednesday. "The Patriot Act is a law enforcement tool to identify and track terrorists and stop them from further attacks on America. To apply it to this case is, shall we say, an overreaching application of the law."

Use of Patriot Act against homeless is under fire

new coup for you · 01-21-08, 08:20 PM

It's a Civil Right when Republicans support somthing, it's a favor to special interest groups when Democrats support somthing.