Izawwlgood wrote:Again, you seem to not know what words mean; the Christian right is not saying 'Us Christians don't believe in homosexual equality, so we won't personally have homosexual marriage', they're saying 'Us Christians don't believe in homosexual equality, so no one should be able to'. Again, no state should be allowed to legislate that, say, black people aren't entitled a vote. This is the same thing.
But they're not saying that. They're not saying that homosexuals should be denied free speech, voting rights, freedom of religion, freedom of property, or anything. They're only saying that A) homosexuals should stop being homosexual and return to the way it was, B) the definition of marriage shouldn't change, and C) the government shouldn't allow same-sex people to contract for marriage.
I disagree with the last, agree with the second, and take no opinion on the third.
You were the one who claimed that Christianity wasn't spread through illicit means. I'm pointing out to you that it was. What is legitimate means? The means that the homosexual agenda is advocating it's cause; through attempting to secure more rights and freedoms to people.
OK, why are they legitimate and Christianity's rise illegitimate? I've said that the rise of power of any idea is evolutionary. You're saying that the power should be stripped unless it's by campaigning for power. Why should this be a controlled situation instead of an open evolutionary concept? And even if it should, how do you get that control?
You still don't get it; Christians are seeking to assemble and petition the government, but they are petitioning the government TO CONTINUE OPPRESSING non-Christians. Because again, no one is saying 'Stop letting Christians live as they want'. Christians however, ARE saying 'Stop letting non-Christians live as non-Christians'.
But ANY assembly and ANY petition should be allowed to occur. I can write my congressperson trying to get him to repeal the 13th amendment and make you all my slaves. You can disagree with him doing it, but if you want to deny me my right to write that letter and take that position, then you're oppressing me. In the same way, if you're trying to stop Christians from saying that non-Christians shouldn't live as non-Christians, even to the government, then you are saying, "stop letting Christians live as they want."
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:I'm not saying that all and only people who do wrong should be put in jail; it's not about the relationship between doing wrong and being imprisoned. I'm saying that if there are facts about who belongs in jail, or what is just retribution, or a dispassionate reason to imprison someone, or that any of the above should be the basis for imprisonment, then there are moral facts.
Yes. . .
And if there are moral facts, then there is a clear line between bothering people to do the right thing and just bothering people.
No. The action is the determinant of moral facts, not the motive. There is not a clear line between robbing people to do the right thing and just robbing people. Both warrant prison, just retribution, etc. There is not a clear line when the action is bothering people. Or, if there is, then the standard of right and wrong changes from "which side just wants to walk away and be left alone" to "what's the evolutionary superior?"
Ignoring this distinction by saying that conservative Christians and queer people just want to "oppress" people is, as Belial says, obfuscatory. Instead of taking on the reasons that people actually have for drawing a distinction, you just go and talk about something else.
I'm not ignoring the distinction, I'm trying to argue against it. I'm saying that what makes things distinct is not the end, but the means.
In other words, there are three different tiers at which we can look at the two sides:
1. The violence they are committing (counting oppressive laws as violence)
2. The non-violent acts they are committing. (speeches, arguments, political positions, and community advancement, etc.)
3. The potential violence, and the changes they would make to others, if given the complete fulfillment of their desires.
I think that Tier 3 is not a particularly practical thing to talk about, but since everyone wants to talk about it vis a vis right-wing Christians, I include it.
On Tier 1, we both agree on the standard of noninterference. Shooting warrants just retribution, and an unfair law should be stricken from the books. We disagree on the process in both cases, but we agree on the standard.
The problem comes when you compare Tier 2 for homosexuals and multiculturalists against Tier 3 for Christians. My argument is that Tier 2 is deuces wild, anything goes. Say anything. Argue for theocracy, dictatorship, homosexual superiority, whatever. You don't. You're saying that there are some positions that warrant Tier-3 judgement, and that Christians are taking them. If that's the case, then I'm going to judge the homosexual movement by its Tier 3.
Here you say that the ultimate goals of the homosexual movement are non-violent and noninterfering. I don't believe that
. In the first place, we don't have sufficient evidence to say what they would do if they had the kind of social and political power that the Christian right has. The assumption that their noninterference position is taken out of pure heart and not out of the simple fact that they don't have the ability to interfere with Christians is one that I don't make. In the second, we do have evidence of what happens when the multicultural position gets some social and political power. It censors words and positions, and, in some countries, does so by force of law. In the third place, I believe that, based on their statements and positions, homosexuals and multiculturalists both want, as their ultimate genie-lamp wish, right-wing Christianity to go away or convert to a moderate position. And that's nothing more than what the right-wing Christians want for the opposition.
Let's see another example:
TheAmazingRando wrote:Steroid: are black people oppressing white supremacists by living in America, since white supremacists are being denied racial exclusivity?
Is it unfair to label one a hate group, but not the other?
More to the point: if a group feels oppressed because they're being denied exclusive rights to something they have no legitimate claim to, why should I give a fuck?
Are they? No. Are white supremacists oppressing black people by living in America and taking the nonviolent actions that they take? No.
Do white supremacists want, wish, and desire to restrict the freedoms of black people, thus oppressing them? Yes. Do black people want, wish, and desire to restrict the freedoms of white supremacists, thus oppressing them? Yes.