Do you hate gay people? I suppose you have the right to hate whomever you choose, but does that give you the right to deny them their rights?
Look, folks, my philosophy is pretty straight forward. I want liberty and freedom for every American. I want the government to only step in when a child is involved or if someone is going to get hurt.
That is the only reason I support gays when I'm not gay. Pot smokers when I don't smoke pot...anymore. Bigamists when I only want (can tolerate) one wife. Etc, etc, etc.
If anything demonstrates the silliness over "ruining" marriage by allowing gays to marry, is the false assumption that allowing openly gays in the military would ruin the military.
Some people seem to hate change....any change. Here is the first woman to run in the Boston Marathon being attacked by a...what?.....change hater? Think about that.
And what the fuck is going on in North Carolina?
Every....EVERY prediction of doom that would develop by giving freedom to every citizen has been proven wrong, but they still resist. What the fuck do they have against liberty?
The stupid people always like to shun any personal responsibility by simply declaring it a religious thing. I don't care what you think your religion mandates, do you really want the government to choose who you can and can not love? Who you can or can not fuck? What kind of fucking fascist are you?
Only in America is obesity considered a disease and homosexuality considered a choice.
8 comments:
Well, if we use the Merriam-Webster definition of disease then yeah, obesity fits the bill. Regardless, obesity is gross and indicative of selfish consumerism and the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" mindsets that have come to dominate American culture (and I like capitalism, mind). If nothing else, being a fatty (supposing no glandular problems) is just like any other habitual life-shortening behavior — drug use, thrill-seeking, using a phone while driving, etc.
I'm pretty "libertarian" when it comes to drug use and thrill-seeking and so forth insofar as it doesn't impact the public, but that doesn't mean I think we should just abandon all crack addicts to their addictions. I also don't think we should just "accept" that 42% of Americans will be obese by 2030 — ethically speaking, we ought to try to reduce that number.
Also, "choice" shouldn't factor into sexual rights talks. It shouldn't make any difference whether prospective homo couples feel intrinsically gay or whether they feel heterosexual or asexual and nonetheless want a homo-marriage (e.g. best friends who've lived together for two or three decades might want to marry to get gubment benefits, property rights, etc, ditto two asexuals who are in love). I have no more or less objection to that idea than I do to the idea of "natural gays" getting married. The constant suggestion that choice is important in the discussion is just another form of divisive discrimination. Let adults marry whichever adult they so choose for whatever reason; problem fixed.
good short sweet post full of good jabs at the folks on the wrong side of history.
this will be a game changer, but it wont mean anything to anyone if it does not come true. all i really care about are two fundamental questions about rights:
1. do you like having your rights?
2. then why would you take them from someone else?
it is very simple, rights are either for all or none. if one group is subjugated then does that not leave the door open for further oppression. in which case rights have now become privileges, because unlike rights, privileges can be taken away.
@the boy: all rights are privileges granted by states/societies. History makes this painfully evident. People can blather about inalienable, innate, or god-given "rights" all they want, but when it comes to actual, functional, real-world law, a cumulonimbus-perspective ain't so useful.
It will be a sad day if Jambe quits posting in your comment section.
Jambe....we have a problem...you and I. You seem to be confused as to who is authorized to give "rights" to whom. I don't need anything or anyone to tell me what my rights are. I have a "right" to do what ever the fuck I want to do as long as it does not harm another. It seems to me that you are confusing my rights with WHICH of those rights are allowed by governance without punishment.
Obama could have played it safe by not speaking out, but chose to do the right thing. It's a proud day for ALL Americans.
I pity those who hide behind a cloak of bigotry and fear.
I don't see the problem, sir. Your words don't conflict with mine.
Your notion of "rights" (and indeed the ways in which you think about them) are the product of your cultural heritage. This notion that "I have a right to do whatever I want as long as I don't hurt people" is a direct product of your local systems of morality & government, which are themselves descended from European cultures, which are traceable back to Greco-Roman civilization, etc.
This individualistic conception of rights is irrefutably not universal. Just as a thought exercise: imagine you were raised in Kabul. Do you really think you'd have the same ideas about "rights" as you do now?
Tokyo would be an even better example, because the popular conception of "rights" in Japan is very strongly centered around a sense of "duty" and is highly focused on group harmony and social cohesion, as contrasted with Western cultures which idealize "breaking the mold", radical thinking, maverick auteurs, etc.
Thanks for being so nice about it, Jambe. You are about the tenth person to point out the holes in my observation, and you didn't use words like idiot, shallow and arrogant.
Post a Comment