Montana GOP: Homosexuality is a crime

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

And FYO MC I could not give a rat's @ss what the UN says. The USA is different, it is designed and intended to be different and designed and intended to have rights other people do not. The problem with the UN is ...

1. We are members

2. They are located in New York.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you and your wife do a David Carradine in your bedroom, the law would and should get involved.

The same if you buy a sheep to shag senseless.

[Danno 1,228]

If you and your wife do a David Carradine in your bedroom, the law would and should get involved.

The same if you buy a sheep to shag senseless.

... What exactly is a David Carradine?

[Peikko 1,575]

Thank you for demonstrating there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. My very first comment on this issue (check for yourself)

Again the ridiculous claptrao spews out when no logical argument can be made. You and Danno are peas of a pod. You speak of homocide, he speaks of animal sex and now says..."oh well, the laws don't mean anything anyway" If you can't do any better, concede the point and get on with life. You sound ridiculous.

Danno would not agree to a law that banned handguns in North Carolina...or even another state he has never been to...if "it wasn't really enforced" Give me a break. This is all about "My way or the hi-way" and it applies to Repubs and well as Dems.

My point is that Danno, MC and NO ONE else gets to say what my wife and I do, sexually, in our bedroom. Period. Stay out of my bedroom, my refrigerator, my garage, my gun cabinet, my doctors office, all of it. Just stay out! Do what you like and we will do what we like and no one will be harmed.

The homosexuals in this are refer to themselves as "Queers". So what?

You seem to be getting very stressed out Gary, chill. However, you are wrong in your assumptions on privacy and what is protected via the American constitution. If you privately raped your wife, she does have recourse to law, whether you like that or not. You can't just do whatever you like on your own property, you are governed by the laws of the land on your property as well as on public property and those laws are based on an interpretation of rights, and again to live in society we need some framework for determining right from wrong and terms of ownership because there are no innate human rights or notions of right and wrong or ownership, these are all man made constructs. I don't expect you to understand because clearly you are struggling with these concepts, but you need to understand it in order to be able to argue sensibly on this.

And FYO MC I could not give a rat's @ss what the UN says. The USA is different, it is designed and intended to be different and designed and intended to have rights other people do not. The problem with the UN is ...

1. We are members

2. They are located in New York.

I don't really care whether you care about the UN or not, the American government however care very much, for reasons that are obviously beyond your ken.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno would not agree to a law that banned handguns in North Carolina...or even another state he has never been to...if "it wasn't really enforced" Give me a break.

Ahh Gary despite all your Brilliance ... you are wrong again.

All Rights can be modified by TIME PLACE and MANOR.

THe reason I am against gun bans is because they are impractical and without justification.

When our devolution to third world Status is complete, I might think differently.

I might also add, we have plenty of Gun laws all across this country... and the apply even if you are in the privacy of your bed.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Ahh Gary despite all your Brilliance ... you are wrong again.

All Rights can be modified by TIME PLACE and MANOR.

THe reason I am against gun bans is because they are impractical and without justification.

When our devolution to third world Status is complete, I might think differently.

I might also add, we have plenty of Gun laws all across this country... and the apply even if you are in the privacy of your bed.

What part of inalienable don't you understand?

[Danno 1,228]

What part of inalienable don't you understand?

The part that doesn't allow me to holler "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

And the part that doesn't allow you to "Bare arms" around the president.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The part that doesn't allow me to holler "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

And the part that doesn't allow you to "Bare arms" around the president.

Not all rights are unalienable, yet not all rights are modifiable.

[Peikko 1,575]

What part of inalienable don't you understand?

It is a theoretical construct. Rights are not really inalienable because rights do not have a value beyond what we as humans confer on them. The best that can be said is that most people most of the time agree to abide by sets of rules if they can be demonstrated to have a recognizable value. Rights based on equality are the most easily accepted universally - rules based on demands of a deity not so much, you have to believe the deity exists to find them palatable if they contradict the conference of equal rights. Of course most religious beliefs actually bolster notions of equality, it is in areas of sexuality that they tend to come unstuck. I think that has its roots in attempting to ensure that women were cared for when they were simply possessions and vehicles that created inheritance lineage but there are clearly anomalies.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It is a theoretical construct. Rights are not really inalienable because rights do not have a value beyond what we as humans confer on them. The best that can be said is that most people most of the time agree to abide by sets of rules if they can be demonstrated to have a recognizable value. Rights based on equality are the most easily accepted universally - rules based on demands of a deity not so much, you have to believe the deity exists to find them palatable if they contradict the conference of equal rights. Of course most religious beliefs actually bolster notions of equality, it is in areas of sexuality that they tend to come unstuck. I think that has its roots in attempting to ensure that women were cared for when they were simply possessions and vehicles that created inheritance lineage but there are clearly anomalies.

There are clearly a few that are inalienable, for instance the right to exist or the right to have personal beliefs.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Sousuke

[Peikko 1,575]

There are clearly a few that are inalienable, for instance the right to exist or the right to have personal beliefs.

Not really. Humans created the notion of rights. The rest of the animal kingdom does not operate under these conventions and they manage to exist. I doubt they have anything that resembles a belief system either, but you never know. Once you understand that rights are a human creation it does make it easier to make sense of things.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Not really. Humans created the notion of rights. The rest of the animal kingdom does not operate under these conventions and they manage to exist. I doubt they have anything that resembles a belief system either, but you never know. Once you understand that rights are a human creation it does make it easier to make sense of things.

Thank you (again) Captain Obvious. It's really condescending to state basic facts and knowledge to make a point. Guess what, we know as much as you do. Thanks, but keep it short and to the point. It makes one more credible.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Not really. Humans created the notion of rights. The rest of the animal kingdom does not operate under these conventions and they manage to exist. I doubt they have anything that resembles a belief system either, but you never know. Once you understand that rights are a human creation it does make it easier to make sense of things.

What I'm getting at is that a person with cognitive abilities has rights that are impossible to remove. For instance even with the most thorough brainwashing, you can't completely control what they are thinking. That's part of what the founders were getting at. Of course freedom of speech or other externals can be taken away.

[Peikko 1,575]

What I'm getting at is that a person with cognitive abilities has rights that are impossible to remove. For instance even with the most thorough brainwashing, you can't completely control what they are thinking. That's part of what the founders were getting at. Of course freedom of speech or other externals can be taken away.

I do not see what you are eluding to as rights, from where I sit you seem to be wandering into the realm of existentialism.

I think the founding fathers had some fantastic ideas and constructed a pretty damn good constitution - but it is based on collective consensus, not on something that exists external to human understanding.

Being alive is not in and of itself a right, if it was death would be optional

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I do not see what you are eluding to as rights, from where I sit you seem to be wandering into the realm of existentialism.

I think the founding fathers had some fantastic ideas and constructed a pretty damn good constitution - but it is based on collective consensus, not on something that exists external to human understanding.

Being alive is not in and of itself a right, if it was death would be optional

Its closer to essentialism really. The idea that all humans are born with these rights. Which actually makes since since the founding fathers borrowed heavily from John Locke.