Where does Obama stand on gay rights?

[Edan]

The assertion following that surprises me. Has Cheney, the former VP addressed Gay Marraige recently in a positive way? I must have missed that.

Yeah

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/01/cheney-osame-sex-marriage/

Asked if “some form of legalized marriage” was “inevitable in the United States,” Cheney said that “freedom means freedom for everyone.” “I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish,” said Cheney, adding that believes marriage should be regulated at the state level.

[Ben Kenobi]

Molly has me off ignore.

Rights are indeed created by society

Then they are alienable. Mr. Fun can't whine then about gay people being denied marriage, because as you said, rights are created by society, and can be taken away from society.

from ancient times various groups have been denied the right to vote, to procreate, to run a business, to marry legally, to own property, to worship in their own fashion, to name but a few.

If society creates rights, then you cannot say that any of these societies were wrong in depriving these rights from anyone.

Saying that they held truths to be self-evident (that is, there were supposed to be inalienable 'natural' rights) was just a way for certain 18th Century politicians/philosophers/citizens to circumvent the 'god-given' rights debate in favour of a pronouncement of supposedly inherent 'natural' rights.

Oddly enough, it's an enlightenment argument. I don't like much about the enlightenment, but this part of the reform movement was spot on. The reason why everyone has the right to vote is because we believe in natural law, that all people are created equal and should therefore have the same right to representation as anyone else.

If, as you say, rights are created by society, then we should have no problem depriving people of the vote, because it is a right created by society in the first place.

Even at the time of the Declaration Of Independence and the creation of the Bill Of Rights, women Roman Catholics and slaves in the U.S. were denied rights assumed by others.

That is true, but the same arguement which gave the colonists the right to vote, gave these other groups the same rights. You would have us turn back the clock some 300 years and deprive the vote to everyone.

Rights are inherent, that is the only way we keep the rights we have. You complained loudly when Bush 'trampled' on your civil rights, and yet you assert they are not inherent? You have no basis to complain when your rights are taken away from you, because as you say, they are 'artificial', and have no basis in truth.

[Ben Kenobi]

Who are you to say that Obama will turn out to be exactly the same kind of disappointment?

Kool aid.

I make jugs of it at home. It's really very good. You should try some of mine.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If society creates rights, then you cannot say that any of these societies were wrong in depriving these rights from anyone.

Tortured logic

Why, pray tell, can people not say that societies have chosen wrongly (or are currently choosing wrongly) in what they want to do?

[Ben Kenobi]

Why, pray tell, can people not say that societies have chosen wrongly (or are currently choosing wrongly) in what they want to do?

Cultural relativism. In order to say that your culture is wrong, you have to have some outside reference to the truth.

You have to have some idea that these rights should be there in the first place, which means you really believe that they are inherent, and they aren't a product of their society.

If you are arguing that these rights did not exist before society, then that is a tacit assumption that they can be taken away by society.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Cultural relativism. In order to say that your culture is wrong, you have to have some outside reference to the truth.

Or to rather what you percieve to be a better cultural norm. It may not be objectively better, but in your subjective opinion you feel it is just. No outside reference needed.

You have to have some idea that these rights should be there in the first place, which means you really believe that they are inherent, and they aren't a product of their society.

Wrong.

If you are arguing that these rights did not exist before society, then that is a tacit assumption that they can be taken away by society.

Duh... which is why they must be defended strongly.

[Ben Kenobi]

Or to rather what you percieve to be a better cultural norm. It may not be objectively better, but in your subjective opinion you feel it is just. No outside reference needed.

So you sincerely believe that you are entitled to rights based on your subjective opinion? That's like saying your right to vote is the same as your preference for cornflakes over fruit loops.

Subjectivism has zero force on anyone.

Duh... which is why they must be defended strongly.

I agree, but Subjectivism doesn't get you there. "I have a right to eat cornflakes" just doesn't get my blood moving.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you sincerely believe that you are entitled to rights based on your subjective opinion? That's like saying your right to vote is the same as your preference for cornflakes over fruit loops.

Subjectivism has zero force on anyone.

This is why you never, ever, ever persuade anyone in debates.

History has been about people changing from one subjective opinion to another through persuasion or force. When both sides believe natural law backs them, the question becomes who decides what the natural law actually is... and that's when people with their subjective opinions come into play.

[Ben Kenobi]

History has been about people changing from one subjective opinion to another through persuasion or force.

So you don't believe there is such a thing as absolute truth?

When both sides believe natural law backs them, the question becomes who decides what the natural law actually is... and that's when people with their subjective opinions come into play.

Subjectivism never comes into play. Ever. I guarantee you will never find anyone changing their beliefs because of an appeal to subjectivism.

In this debate the argument isn't about the natural law. Everyone knows what the natural law is. This is simply a conflict. One side believes that fairness is more important then truth, that it is more important to treat everybody the same way then to say, "these things are not the same".

I don't believe for a second that you are basing your concepts on human rights based on your subjective opinion, because you clearly believe that other people should believe in what you believe to be right.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you don't believe there is such a thing as absolute truth?

You obviously have not been paying attention for how many ever years. No, I don't.

Subjectivism never comes into play. Ever. I guarantee you will never find anyone changing their beliefs because of an appeal to subjectivism.

That's invariably what happens. They change their minds on what the natural law is. They change their subjective notions.

Everyone knows what the natural law is. This is simply a conflict. One side believes that fairness is more important then truth, that it is more important to treat everybody the same way then to say, "these things are not the same".

No, both sides believe they have the natural law. Though in some aspects maybe you are correct such as in abortion the pro-choice side believes the truth is more important while the pro-life side believes it is more important to treat the unborn fairly than to follow the truth.

I don't believe for a second that you are basing your concepts on human rights based on your subjective opinion, because you clearly believe that other people should believe in what you believe to be right.

Because I believe my subjective opinion is the most reasonable and people should believe the same things I do. The fact that they don't doesn't cause me anguish that they refused to see the "truth", just that they believe in different things (some of which I personally believe are wrong or stupid or both).

[Ben Kenobi]

You obviously have not been paying attention for how many ever years. No, I don't.

Thanks, I asked that question to make sure your subjective beliefs hadn't changed.

That's invariably what happens. They change their minds on what the natural law is. They change their subjective notions.

Actually, what tends to happen is that they read up on the evidence. If the evidence they find and were told was a lie, then they tend to look for the truth.

I don't know what you do, but that's what I do. If my understanding is faulty, then that is what changes. My subjective notions are irrelevant. I may not like the truth, but the truth is the truth.

No, both sides believe they have the natural law. Though in some aspects maybe you are correct such as in abortion the pro-choice side believes the truth is more important while the pro-life side believes it is more important to treat the unborn fairly than to follow the truth.

The scientific evidence states that human life begins at conception. WRT to abortion, the argument is the same as slavery, some people are not fully persons, and are not deserving of the same respect as other people.

Pretty much every prochoice argument boils down to such, and are just arguments over different lines. I was a prochoicer before Imran. I had not been presented with the truth that human life begins at conception, and our own personal existance begins at that point. I may not remember what life was like then, but then my memories only go back to the age of 3.

Because I believe my subjective opinion is the most reasonable

How is subjectivism anything related to reason? You are arguing something quite different. You believe your position is supported by reason, not by subjectivism.

The fact that they don't doesn't cause me anguish that they refused to see the "truth", just that they believe in different things (some of which I personally believe are wrong or stupid or both).

Fine. Why do you see your position as reasonable? I think your position is reasonable, but your epistemology is dishonest and incredulous. You don't like to admit the fact that there is a universal truth, and you believe that you possess it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually, what tends to happen is that they read up on the evidence. If the evidence they find and were told was a lie, then they tend to look for the truth.

And on moral issues how is one to find "the lie"? People who switch on moral issues rarely, if ever, change because they found what they were told was "a lie".

The scientific evidence states that human life begins at conception.

No it doesn't.

some people are not fully persons, and are not deserving of the same respect as other people.

Which is truth.

How is subjectivism anything related to reason? You are arguing something quite different. You believe your position is supported by reason, not by subjectivism.

Reason is, in many ways, how you can make others believe in your position. That doesn't mean people start from the same core beliefs, nor necessarily, should they. That's what makes it subjectivity.

You don't like to admit the fact that there is a universal truth, and you believe that you possess it.

Not in the slightest. I don't believe I am absolutely right. I could be wrong and am open to be proven otherwise (and have changed in many different areas as is easily seen from the years I've been on this forum). Those who believe in absolute truth are not open to be proven incorrect.

In the same token while I believe that others' beliefs are not optimal (perhaps that's the best word for it), I don't think they are wrong on their face (only some are because of their divorceness from reality). I think it is perfectly rational to believe what some on the other side of the aisle believe and it possibly could be better, but I personally am unconvinced or believe, at the time, something else is better.

Why should we buy your "absolute truth" anyway, since most of us think your truth is a bunch of lies and bull****?

[Ben Kenobi]

And on moral issues how is one to find "the lie"? People who switch on moral issues rarely, if ever, change because they found what they were told was "a lie".

Usually people who have faulty opinions tend to conceal a very important fact. That's always been my experience. Such as:

Quote:
The scientific evidence states that human life begins at conception.

No it doesn't.

Right there. Not really a moral argument is it? It's a factual statement in basic biology. Human life begins at conception. You disagree and from that you make the logical conclusion that human life begins sometime afterwards, but nobody knows exactly when.

Has no force whatsoever to me.

Which is truth.

And word for word what people said to justify slavery. Congrats, imran. Old arguments are definitely in vogue.

Reason is, in many ways, how you can make others believe in your position. That doesn't mean people start from the same core beliefs, nor necessarily, should they. That's what makes it subjectivity.

Hardly. Reason presupposes axioms that are available to everyone and the existance of universal truth which is also available to everyone.

Reason also presupposes that you can obtain said information through nothing more then introspection. People may differ in their core beliefs, but the application of reason leads to one and only one conclusion.

Not in the slightest. I don't believe I am absolutely right. I could be wrong and am open to be proven otherwise (and have changed in many different areas as is easily seen from the years I've been on this forum). Those who believe in absolute truth are not open to be proven incorrect.

I've changed as well. I don't have perfect information. The only one who has ever had such, is in Groundhog day, where he gets to repeat the day over and over again, and nothing changes.

I believe I am correct in what I know, I also know that there is an awful lot that I don't know about.

Why should we buy your "absolute truth" anyway, since most of us think your truth is a bunch of lies and bull****?

Because I've bought your ice-cream but I've found one much more tastier. You don't consider it pertinent that I've believed what you do and found solid reasons to reject it?

[Alinestra Covelia]

Can we just go back to talking about how Obama is a homophobe?

But "Obama" doesn't sound like any other word...

[MrFun]

I'm going to infect the next person who quotes BK with fairy dust.