Ghostbear wrote:(2) If your opposition is on the concept that people will now think about things, then you have absolutely zero sympathy from me on this point. In fact, you have the opposite -- I herald the day when people think about what they believe instead of just believing something because that's the 'default' of those around them. A world with thoughtless automatons is a terrible world, I will be glad to see ours a little more distant from it.
And I'm shooting for the exact opposite: a world where we already know everything and don't have to think anymore. Thinking, work, understanding; all these are human suffering, and I have as much or more sympathy for that suffering as I do for oppression.
netcrusher88 wrote:Steroid's a strong libertaryan. You know, everyone is free to be a rich straight white cis male protestant Christian, and if they're anything else and unhappy with the status quo it's their own damn fault they chose to be downtrodden. The Ronpaul™ version of Libertarianism.
Except that the Ronpaul is against the military.
The Great Hippo wrote:And why on earth should social change be additive instead of transformative? What does that even mean? How do you think 'we' should go about making sure social change happens in this way? Should we use the government to make sure values never disappear? Are you proposing some sort of 'cultural welfare' system, where we support values long after they've become outdated?
I find your position on this subject increasingly bizarre.
Hell, no, we shouldn't use the government. What we should have are strong cultural institutions that don't go away just because something else comes along to fill their niches. The kind of world where everyone in town was the same religion (or weird) is worth preserving, because it produced so much good (including the world as is).
Ghostbear wrote:You guessed correctly. I'd like to also add that Steroid's statement is a rather odd interpretation of what I was saying in response to his comment asking if there was anything that church's can deny people. I said that there wouldn't be anything forcing the church to declare gay people saints (among other things -- I believe I also mentioned that the wouldn't need to perform the marriages either) as part of a basic list of things that churches can keep to themselves -- which is, essentially, anything that stays wholly and solely within the church as a church-only practice.
But you also said that if sainthood became societally valuable, that you would expect gays to start fighting for the right as they did for marriage. What I'm looking for is something that gays want but accept that they can't have without giving in to the religious establishment. If it doesn't currently exist, that's a quirk of fate. If you're saying that it *shouldn't* exist, then you're again favoring inclusiveness over exclusiveness.
Lucrece wrote:Not having normalcy is itself a harm -- there are financial and social consequences to it.
Then why do you want to impute that harm to Christians?
And since you seem set on moving to a hypothetical about some magical government not grounded by human nature and reality, as libertarians are wont to do; no, it won't happen. Humans are NEVER just happy to hold an opinion on social matters and stay away from doing something about it to see that opinion enforced. A belief in the inferiority of homosexuals doesn't just stay a belief, just like any other superiority complex doesn't stay nebulous and individual.
Then what am I? I think I'm superior to homosexuals but support their equal rights. The fact that you say that humans can't do that would lend weight to my belief that I am superior to all humans.
When you're able to make some sort of cyborg or life form capable of divorcing prejudice from behavior toward the objects of his/her/its prejudice, you get back to me about your "rights-oriented government". Rights for humans exist only so far as humans that make up part of the group discussing it choose to recognize such rights and invest in seeing them enforced.
I disagree. Rights are inherent; it takes an active decision to violate them. But even if you were right, I would say that we should spend our time working on that form of life rather than trying to patchwork together something to fit the status quo.
IcedT wrote:So wait- it's wrong to treat gays as second-class citizens, but also wrong to encourage people not to think of gays as second-class citizens? What kind of mental gymnastics did you have to go through to reach that conclusion, Steroid?
The root of the problem is that there seems to be a general agreement that there should be no second-class citizens at all. Well, I want to be better than others. How can I do that if the people whom I'm better than don't have to take it but can demand class elevation to my level?
darkone238 wrote:I'm sure this has already been addressed by now, but I have to step in, specifically towards the emphasized portion. Do you really think that we only now want equality under the law? Do you think wanting to be treated equally is a new concept? I obviously can't speak for people in the past, but I'd like to think that people who faced being told they have a mental illness would've wanted to be treated equally back then too. Did black people not want to be treated equally before the 1960s?
No, but they did want to be treated equally socially, and they still are claiming more than they should in my opinion. Equality under law, inequality outside of law. Simple formula.