Thread: If It's All The Same To You, Why Deny Others?

I have seen people, some very intelligent and some well educated and some plain old average or below voice with great passion their opinions about matters that don't seem to affect them one way or another. The subjects of the passions are the same perennial dead horses that have been repeatedly beaten in these forums. My question here is not meant to incite an argument but I think it probably will.

Today I drove past a women's health clinic and there were people picketing on the sidewalk out front of the place and shouting at cars that were entering the parking lot. There was an elderly man who was particularly loud and threatening in his manner. He held a sign that said, American abortions, Hitler would have loved it! Apparently the place does provide abortions but it is a general services medical clinic for all women. The protesters had no way of knowing why anyone was entering the clinic's parking lot but every one was a target of what could be very intimidating actions as they crossed the picket line. The old man seemed to be incensed about things that did not affect him in any way. I wonder why.

There are other things like legalization of prostitution, gay marriage, legalization of marijuana (and other drugs)to name a few. I know from the Miss America thread that we have opinions. I did put a poll on the gay marriage question not because I care what your opinions are but I would like to know why, if the issue does not involve you, why would you want to deny anyone freedoms that are enjoyed by others? The poll will give us an idea of the level of concern regarding the issue.

In Iran homosexuality is illegal. When he spoke at Columbia University the president of Iran was asked what his feelings were regarding gay rights. He answered, "We have no one like that in Iran." I wonder if the people in the USA who would deny gays the freedom to marry and enjoy all the same benefits as straight couples would be okay with legalized pursecution of homosexuals as in Iran.

Why do you care if it doesn't involve you?

Good post. Thank you, icedog.

Agreed, good post. To paraphrase a bumper sticker I once saw regarding abortion, "if you don't like same-sex marriage, don't have one."

Rich

There could be indirect effects. E.g. perhaps that elderly man is dependent on government support and the loss of tax dollars due to potential citizens being aborted can affect him. Or may turn out that the abortions are economically beneficial to him if those potential citizens would live on welfare. It is more likely that these are not his primary concerns though.

I just thought I'd bring up that the 'effects' are often misevaluated or misrepresented by both sides on an issue.

Gugi,
Thanks for the response and I appreciate your speculation but speculation is why I asked the question. The old guy is simply an example. I am hoping to hear from him directly.

Brad

i've never wanted the gov't to have the power to control my private life, and i'd include marriage in that. true, my marriage is a very boring breeder-on-breeder affair, but i still had to fill out a ton of paperwork and pay fees to the gov't in order for my marriage to be "legal".

letting the government say what does and does not constitute marriage is appalling. it's a democracy, and most amendments on the state level about this have been referendums, so let's play a little mind game:

a few years ago in texas this was voted on via popular referendum. now, being texas, most folks voted that the gov't should define marriage as one man and one woman. i was talking to a coworker of mine after we voted during lunch hour, and it went a little something like this:

him: so you voted to keep queers from marrying, right?
me: nope.
him: what?? you want queers to be able to get married?
me: i don't care in the slightest.
him: then why did you vote against the prop?
me: i don't want to set a dangerous precedent that mob rule gets to decide what marriage means.
him: what?
me: look, it's a proposition, right? a referendum, everyone that's over 18, not a felon, and bothers to goto a polling place gets a say, right?
him: yep.
me: so we're saying that the majority gets to decide what marriage is. i'm guessing the majority will prolly decide that marriage is one man and one woman.
him: yeah, so?
me: so, if 20 years from now, gays outnumber straights in Texas, they'll have a perfect legal precedent to vote again and outlaw straight marriage.
him: [deafening silence and a look of mild panic]
me: so that's why i voted against it. regardless of my personal feelings about gay marriage, i simply don't want mob rule telling me who i can and cannot marry.

needless to say, it gave him some food for thought.

Originally Posted by jockeys

i've never wanted the gov't to have the power to control my private life, ...

...needless to say, it gave him some food for thought.

I'll add a little more fuel to the fire for thought. Watch this: The American form of government. (Video)

It's an interesting little essay that sums up some of the arguments here, but in the most general fundamental terms as it relates to who gets to decide the issues as a democracy, or the standard against which decisions are made, as in the law.

My signature takes on a whole different meaning given the current state of the economy. The economy can take on the same force as the single issue of gay marriage, or abortion, or the war on terror, or global warming, or ________ the issue du jour.

What happens is that the politicians/media can make the herd move based on simple fearful inflammatory values couched in single issues. They polarize the voting body. The herd will not move if it's educated and moderate. If the herd is afraid and moving, the thin veneer of civilization will last about thirty seconds.

As Jockey's example points out, the swinging pendulum has the most danger in becoming stuck in one extreme or the other. That's where the most money is made.

In my opinion, it is simply one person forcing their ideas upon another.

Is this wrong? Maybe. But maybe its only wrong because we have the luxury of debating about it. We can't know its wrong unless we are educated about the subject. Not so long ago, most of our morals came from the pastors at church. In fact, I would go so far to say that its not all that different today.

People are not generally leaders, people are followers. So if their church leader says "gay rights are a disaster and all gays should be crucified," then the congregation is likely to believe him. They are too lazy to actually research the subject themselves and blindly follow the authoritative figure.

Gay rights may not affect them in any financial way, but it is abhorrent to their beliefs and they probably can't even stand the sight of two men or two women holding hands in public. I would wager, that if they could have their way, it would be like Iran, where homosexuality was a prosecuted crime and the penalty was death.

Personally, I am a little turned off when I see two men publicly displaying their affection, but in the end, I know it doesn't affect me. I also know that their genes will likely die with them. Plus, its a great population control.

As an educated person, I see the big picture. I'm more concerned about global warming and whether my offspring will have a planet to live on. Or if they will have fresh water to drink and clean air to breathe. These are more pressing problems. I could care less about gay rights, honestly. But I think they should have them. Refusing gays rights is simply cruel and unfair. It is similar to punishing a minority for being of a different race. And as a minority, I empathize with that position.

I personally don't really care if they don't get "marriage" and its called a "civil union," but they deserve equal treatment. We don't live in an oppressive government. People in the US should be able to live the life they want.

I don't think we should deny their rights "because it doesn't affect us". Who's to say that it does or does not affect us?

I think the debate stems from what marriage is. There are two facets to marriage- symbolization and taxation. Before there were marriage contracts, joint filing of returns, and health insurance, marriage was symbolic. Whether it was before God, your church, your tribe, it meant something in that arena.

Now we have marriage contracts, and having this affords you certain rights as a legal entity.

At the base of it, I say let 'em have equality. This equality thing cuts both ways- you don't have to let them get married in your church, etc. That's why there are judges.

If that's not good enough, then I say leave it alone at the national level. It's not the federal government's business anyway. Let it be decided on a state by state basis, and no one has to get angry.

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

I don't think we should deny their rights "because it doesn't affect us". Who's to say that it does or does not affect us?

I am asking the simplest question at the simplest level. Please take it at face value and forget about the long term consequences and statistical implications. I am curious about the passionate need to be involved or concerned with the choices of strangers.

An old man protesting violently against the legality of abortion. An abortion for any reason performed on a complete stranger does not affect this man. He simply wants all abortions stopped forever. It is something in his gut driving him. What? Why?

A middle aged woman married with children stands in front of a polling place screaming at a gay couple, "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" The gay couple are not related to her. Why would she so vehemently deny them the same deal she herself has enjoyed?