On the Threshold of Bigotry

Oh I don't doubt that. But the processes of free speech, democracy and representation are such that reasoned and rational arguments of a pragmatic nature are required in order to pass laws whatever individual governments may believe to be true.Simply asserting that a particualr law is necessary by decree on the basis that the government of the day believes it to be so on irrational ideological grounds is not enough in itself in any free democracy I am aware of.True - Succeesive governments pass ideological laws whilst paying only lip service to rational, reasoned and pragmatic argument. But the fact that they do pay lip service at least shows that they ackowledge that this should be the basis of law making.Do you disagree that rational, reasoned and pragmatic laws should be the basis of the rule of law and that ideological irrational laws are inherently indefensible?

This old horse is going to die from being brought out of the barn and whipped too often. And some snoopy admin will probably get his pink panties in a bundle if I say once again that there is a not a drop of nourishing intelligence in the question: "[S]hould homosexual couples be denied the same legal rights as heterosexual couples?" The simple fact here is that they ARE NOT denied anything that heterosexuals are denied. Do you feel that being denied a polygamous marriage is an affront to your liberty? Then this leaves your definition awash in subjectivity. I'm looking for more of a mechanical one that can be viewed objectively.”HM

The right to marry a lover, sexual partner and potential lifetime mate is irrefutably denied. I think that there are potentially rational and pragmatic reasons why polygamists should not enjoy the same legal rights as couples.However I have yet to hear a rational reason why a gay couple should not enjoy the same rights as a heterosexual couple. Subjective?
How is a definition of bigotry that includes promoting practical restrictions on the personal freedoms of others (as long as those freedoms do not in turn restrict the personal freedoms of a different grouping) subjective?If you tell me that I cannot do action X. But action X can be demonstrated to have no personal effect on you or anyone else who does not wish it to do so. Then how can your imposed restriction of my right to do action X be objectively or rationally justified?This is the basis of my argument. How is any of this generic argument subjective? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Straggler, the main problem I have with this is that you're omitting the fact that what is "rational, reasoned and pragmatic" is too often subjective beyond repair and in the end must pay homage to some prevailing ideology.Where do you objectively draw the line? How do you decide on issues of such things as gay marriage rights or born-again pharmacist's rights to deny medication? You have to reach into that greasy barrel of opinions and sort it out. In the end somebody wins and somebody loses. Because in the end the law discriminates all over the place. Somebody's ideology is going to be favored and another's will be spurned. That's life. Tough titty.Some people feel disadvantaged and discriminated against for doing nothing more than forcing pit bulls to fight to death. Hey, it's a popular and profitable sport! Who's to say they're wrong? Maybe we need a special law to protect their interests, too. And maybe the mere suggestion of this, if juxtaposed with gay marriage or prejudicial pharmacy, is enough to cause of a blow to be struck on the playing field of bigotry.”HM

It's quite easy to objectively draw the line. You objectively draw the line when things become subjective. And you can ask others to get other viewpoints to try and collectively understand if you're all being objective or not.Exactly like what Straggler has done in Message 33: Nice, neat and objective. No subjectivity invloved. Unless you can point some out?Just because the line isn't always drawn perfectly objectively by everyone at every point in history doesn't mean it shouldn't be, or that we shouldn't try to correct those mistakes.

depends on the state, a couple states allow it, the democratic majority do not.the ugly side to democracy is if you are in the minority, you may not get enough votes for your side. haven't got any, though marriage is a term that by definition does not aply to same sexed couples. they would have to invent a term and pass laws for it, which i would not vote against.BTW we worked with gay couples in the pink pistols, to finally get a real answer in the DC v. Heller case.

Then I say: FREE MICHAEL VICK! He is in prison for doing "action X" that "can be demonstrated to have no personal effect on you or anyone else who does not wish it to do so."”HM

What ideology is prevailing in the example below?Straggler writes If we agree that laws should be based upon rationality, reason and pragmatism in principle then I do not see how you can disagree with the above.
If you believe that laws should be borne of ideology then we have a very different debate.Which is your position?

Sure. Go ahead and say that all you want.Thanks for pointing out how your subjective feelings about Michael Vick have no bearing on the objective demonstration of his wrong-doings.See? Objective, reasonable, rationally justified regulations are good.Subjective regulations should be corrected.

How about the bit about demonstrating no personal effect? Surely that's in the eye of the beholder?One of the 'softer' elements of society is it's general and not unimportant flavour. Dutch society, for example, is very much like Ireland except that they are a fair bit tighter on abiding by the law than the Irish are. The Germans in turn are much tighter-of-sphincter than the Dutch.I would tend to resist any movement that would shift the flavour we have in Ireland to that of Holland - even though I'd have a hard time coming up with a rational argument as to why the law of the Irish land shouldn't be more rigidly enforced than it currently is - if all it would do is alter personally treasured flavour

I utterly agree.
I did not say that devising laws on the basis of reason and rationality was easy or uncontentious. Just that it should be the aim over irrational ideology.Deciding who is or is not negatively impacted is obviously highly individual and highly subjective to each potential law.However the founding principle of excluding irrational ideology is not.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Michael Vick is in prison for abusing animals. His "action X" had a very obvious negative "personal" effect on the animals in question.Whether or not you think the rights and freedoms of animals should be included in law is a subject totally tangential to this thread. Currently laws do protect the rights of animals to some degree at least. As such Michael Vick has been convicted on the basis of his actions having a very harmful personal effect on these animals.However unless you are comparing homosexuals to dogs (which I don't think that you are) then the example is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Namely gay marriage rights.

I agree. I have to pay property taxes on my home, but the church down the street gets all its municipal services for free. Now that's subjective regulation for you!”HM

No. The subject at hand is about how bigotry is measured, and upon what common landscape this measurement can be accomplished. You, or at least your cohorts of the argument, have already asserted that gay marriage should be treated just like regular marriage, and anyone who disagrees is a bigot. This is why I am suspicious that Lawyer Larry is the the business of fulminating bigotry. And I want to know what landscape he is standing on.Tentative Rule #1: You can measure bigotry in the noise made by those who accuse others of it.”HM

Fair point. My cohorts......?
My argument against differentiating between gay and homosexual couples right to marriage is based on the definition of bigotry as the desire to restrict the rights of certain groupings on irrational ideological grounds.You have yet to really tackle that argument.Do you think laws should be based on irrational ideology or rational reason and pragmatism? If the latter on what rational basis (that does not also apply to heterosexual couples) can you justify your gay marriage objections? Larry lawyer is not attempting to restrict the personal freedoms of anyone else. Nobody who does not themselves want to have a gay marriage will be affected by Larry's actions.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.