I still want a different word for 'gay marriage'

Well I don't always do the appropriate things and being mislabeled irritates me enough to be angry. Well if they don't believe me then fuck 'em. Being mislabelled only pisses me off until I directly correct the label. If the labeler doesn't believe me then the anger quickly dissolves into complete and utter apathy.

They should, in fact, be forced to tolerate everything that isn't any of their business. You're asserting a right of people to butt in to everybody else's life that I don't believe exists. Maybe you can justify that? I sure don't. Can you explain it to me? Because what you're suggesting is as ridiculous as asserting that it's unfair that criminals get punished, but law-abiding citizens don't.How could one take a position of tolerance without being intolerant of the intolerant?

If I feel that gay marriages will have a negetive affect on my taxes and healthcare, doesn't it become my business? Even if I'm wrong, doesn't the presumption of a personal affect make it my business? It'd be hypocritical for someone to preach tolerance while being intolerant of people who don't agree with them and to be prejudiced towards them while saying that people shouldn't be prejudiced. They'd be treating homophobes like homophobes treat gays. I don't see the connection, how's that? They could tolerate the intolerance.

quote:

---

If I feel that gay marriages will have a negetive affect on my taxes and healthcare, doesn't it become my business?

---

No.Constitutional rights for all people exist regardless of your "feelings" that there might be some detrimental effects.Even if you are right, and there will be some detrimental effect to you, it's just too damn bad.Your misgivings and even any actual detrimental effects do not trump the rights granted to all people under our Constitution.

---

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

Doesn't mean its not my business. Well with that attitude I could say that its just too damn bad for the gays, then. Well apparently, in the link from the message for you upthread, in New York gays do not have the right to marry. I haven't read anything about a federal right tho'.

I don't see how. Obviously, everybody who butts into things that aren't any of their business thinks it's their business. So what? That doesn't sound like hypocrisy. That sounds like justice. If you tolerate intolerance, then you aren't tolerant. Promoting tolerance means being intolerant of intolerance. How could you possibly be considered tolerant if you're tolerating intolerance?

o.OIf you tolerate inrolerance then you ARE tolerant, by definition. You'd be considered tolerant because you tolerate everything. You define promoting tolerance different than I do.Hey, look what I found on wiki:

quote:

---

Philosopher John Rawls devotes a section of his influential and controversial book A Theory of Justice to the problem of whether a just society should or should not tolerate the intolerant, and to the related problem of whether or not, in any society, the intolerant have any right to complain when they are not tolerated.

​

Rawls concludes that a just society must be tolerant, therefore the intolerant must be tolerated for otherwise the society would then be intolerant and so unjust. However Rawls qualifies this by insisting that society and its social institutions have a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance. Hence, the intolerant must be tolerated but only insofar as they do not endanger the tolerant society and its institutions.

---

bold added for emphasisI think he agrees with me.

I'm not seeing much evidence of that "apathy".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

Well with that attitude I could say that its just too damn bad for the gays, then.

---

Yeah, that's what the segregationists said, too....and the people wanting to keep slavery legal....and the people who wanted to keep sodomy illegal....and the people who wanted to keep mixed race marriages illegal....and the people who wanted to keep women from voting, owning property, running businesses, or inheriting wealth from their families....and the people wanting to continue making stuents recite the Bible or pray in public school classrooms.Did any of those groups suffer adverse affects by having to share power and privilages with previously marginalized groups?Yes, they did.Do you think we should particularly sympathize with the racists, the sexists, and the Christians who's power to impose their idea of what society should be like upon the rest of us was taken away?Make no mistake; you are advocating denying people a constitutional right for exactly the same reason.Where is it written that you have the right to deny others' rights just so you can continue to enjoy cheaper healthcare?

Actually it would likely LOWER his healthcare costs. I offered once to discuss it with him but instead he just ran away.Healthcare premiums are based on risk assesment and experience. Currently the cost of a Family policy takes into account the costs of a pregnancy and also the costs of 2.5 children. Married homosexual couples entering the pool of Family Insurance would most likely LOWER the premium over time as experience showed they were less likely to have a family member getting pregnant or the added costs involved with children.Initially it will be the homosexual couples who will pay a disproportionate share of the healthcare, paying more for and getting less for their Family policy than the bisexual couple.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

...and the people who support gay marriages....and you.

Did not.I would appreciate your insite and wisdom.Time is a factor though, I'm sure we can find it.

Well, sometimes I post because I don't have anything better to do In RL, gay marriage is a non-issue to me.

By simple logic, you can't be for something if you support its opposite. A != ~A is the most elementry proof in logic.Being for tolerance means you have to be against the opposite of tolerance. You can't be tolerant unless you're intolerant of intolerance. That's an obvious fact. If they're not endangering the tolerant society, then it's because they're not taking actions against what they claim to not tolerate.Which is tolerance. Therefore, the people that Rawls is talking about are not actually intolerant at all. He's playing a word game, but his position doesn't agree with yours. According to you, tolerant people have to let the intolerant oppress others lest they be intolerant themselves. But that's obviously false. You can't be tolerant unless you oppose efforts to oppress; unless you oppose the intolerant.

Do you think we should particularly sympathize with the racists, the sexists, and the Christians who's power to impose their idea of what society should be like upon the rest of us was taken away?Make no mistake; you are advocating denying people a constitutional right for exactly the same reason.Where is it written that you have the right to deny others' rights just so you can continue to enjoy cheaper healthcare?Do not confuse your continued enjoyment of a privilage as equivalent to a right. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.