Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I used to see the "Majority rules, and the majority says that gay rights are wrong!" argument a lot, but it's sort of died off recently. This may have to do with the fact that this argument is no longer even true in the purely factual sense. But back when it was being used, I used the counterargument of pointing out some societal group they were a part of and asking if it would be alright to wantonly slaughter all members of that group if 51% of the country thought it was alright. That tended to end the discussion entirely.

[Truean]

Yeah, majority rule doesn't work when you're talking about civil rights. Civil Rights are something you're entitled to: even at society's expense and inconvenience. Otherwise slavery would never have ended and the Dread Scot Decision would've stood (the single worst U.S. Supreme Court case in history).

[Kay12]

Then again, who decides the civil rights?

In any case, the Majority rule isn't flawless as it is. I'm not saying any system is. What is the case, though, that modern Western society has a very relaxed attitude towards most things - if it doesn't cause or risk harm, chances are it's not illegal. Traditional but inconvenient and irrational laws are slowly falling off the law books.

So, from a rational viewpoint: Who gets harmed if gay people are allowed to marry each other? I don't think anyone is, with the possible exception of adopted childred if they actually conclude that kids really do grow up weird if they have two moms/dads. But I think those claims have been debunked as well, so no sale.

[G-Flex]

In any case, the Majority rule isn't flawless as it is.

Which is why we don't have it. The US is very, very, very far from any sort of direct democracy.

What is the case, though, that modern Western society has a very relaxed attitude towards most things - if it doesn't cause or risk harm, chances are it's not illegal.

American culture? Relaxed attitude? Speaking of the US in particular, we have more people in prison than anywhere else, and several times more than any other first-world nation. Our political climate also pretty much entire revolves around fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

[Kay12]

In any case, the Majority rule isn't flawless as it is.

Which is why we don't have it. The US is very, very, very far from any sort of direct democracy.

Never said anyone had. Democracy and majority rule come in various forms.

What is the case, though, that modern Western society has a very relaxed attitude towards most things - if it doesn't cause or risk harm, chances are it's not illegal.

American culture? Relaxed attitude? Speaking of the US in particular, we have more people in prison than anywhere else, and several times more than any other first-world nation. Our political climate also pretty much entire revolves around fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

You got my point wrong. During the past decades, the attitudes and legislation on culture have relaxed. People have been given more freedom to do things that were illegal previously but not harmful to anyone (such as engage in homosexual relationships).

[G-Flex]

Fair point, but liberalization is pretty much always trending like that in the Western world... slow progress is to be expected even in a somewhat conservative climate. We're still often behind much of the rest of the first world when it comes to that.

[freeformschooler]

You got my point wrong. During the past decades, the attitudes and legislation on culture have relaxed. People have been given more freedom to do things that were illegal previously but not harmful to anyone (such as engage in homosexual relationships).

Kay's right -- and I grew up with this, so now any time anything not harmful to others is made illegal barring things that already are (I guess specific drugs??), I do a double take.

[Kay12]

Indeed, but liberalism (or rather, rationalism in favor of tradition) is emerging in any case.

By the way, by the way... could some of you Americans explain why conversion camps is legal in your country? I heard there are even companies that snatch children in the middle of the night so they can't run away.

[freeformschooler]

By the way, by the way... could some of you Americans explain why conversion camps is legal in your country? I heard there are even companies that snatch children in the middle of the night so they can't run away.

I actually can't since I've only heard of it through that whole shpeal on reddit. However, I'm sure that the camps themselves may be legal on principle but the way they treated their "abductees" would be QUITE illegal, if anyone could catch them.

[Kay12]

By the way, by the way... could some of you Americans explain why conversion camps is legal in your country? I heard there are even companies that snatch children in the middle of the night so they can't run away.

I actually can't since I've only heard of it through that whole shpeal on reddit. However, I'm sure that the camps themselves may be legal on principle but the way they treated their "abductees" would be QUITE illegal, if anyone could catch them.

I'm certain that homosexual children and other such "defiants" would grow up healthier if they got acceptance from their parents instead of being snatched forcibly into some enclosed area where they get told they're not well and need to be fixed.

[Truean]

Because it's unfortunate, but it's perfectly legal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in the US. It's the civil rights acts of 1964-1965 that make most discrimination illegal and those two simply aren't in it.

As for those camps, the parents pay them to do that. Screwed up huh? 

[Kay12]

Screwed up yeah. So, you're an American? No I'm not going to blame you for being one, I just want to know how much attention the camps are receiving over there. Are the mindscrewing camps considered to be a serious issue by any mainstream politician?

[Truean]

Yes, I'm one and also GLBT....

No, these camps aren't even on the radar to anyone. People might or might not have heard of them and some would support them if they did know. A significant portion of the population doesn't like gays at all here.

[scriver]

Not liking gays does not equal being in favour of torturing them psychologically, socially and physically. Being able to discriminate against people of different sexual orientation does not mean that those camps would be legal either, does it? Because isn't such torture of people illegal, regardless of who they are?

I assume we are talking about those "schools" that were brought up earlier in the thread, though. I realise that there are other camps that might not be so easy to accuse of torture, what with the "tough love" excuses and all.

[Kay12]

That is indeed true. Perhaps someone should setup a camp that would tell kids they're ill and rotten without having any anti-gay goal at all. I'd like to see how people would react to that, and how would they justify the conversion camps versus the plain ol' insecurity camp.