1. The Reps have advocated taking away women's right to choose, and done so at the national level for a very long time.
To put it another way.
1 - The Reps have advocated protecting the unborn child's right to life and have done so at the national level for a long time...
2. On affirmative action, it's point is to increase the opportunity to groups discriminated against.
Whatever its point is, it is itself discrimination based on race. And some forms of it decrease liberty.
If you think there is no discrimination in American society
Nice straw man there.
Since discrimination in public education is still a major problem, affirmative action is necessary to expand opportunity.
The first point doesn't logically imply the 2nd.
3. Present attempts to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry are so obviously a limitation on their freedom, it's not even worth discussing.
There fairly obviously not a limitation on their freedom, but I'm willing to discuss it.
Mainly because there is no attempt to deny them "the right to marry", there is an attempt to not recognize anything they would consider a marriage and give it public benefits".
Note that "not a limitation on their freedom", doesn't necessarily imply "not a bad thing". Recognizing and giving benefits to one group and not another could be attacked as discriminating against the 2nd group. But its not taking away their freedom or severely infringing on their liberty, because its not constraining their actions directly, its constraining the actions of the government itself. "The right to marry" in this case isn't the right for them to do anything that they can't do now (at least not directly), its the insistence that they get the same treatment that heterosexual couples get in this area. It may be argued as a reasonable demand that should be met, but even if it is, that doesn't imply that its an issue of freedom/liberty. |
