Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (115496)	5/22/2005 8:00:22 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

you immediately make it about gay rights I didn't make it about gay rights. Clarence Thomas did. He said there was no right to engage in sodomy, which Tim framed as gay rights. I said it wasn't about gay rights but about the right to privacy in one's castle. The distinction between the liberal and libertarian positions, seems to me, is that liberals are concerned with the perceived affirmative rights of humanity such as the right to their choice of sexual activity, the right to health care, the right to sustenance, shelter, education, etc. Libertarians focus on the right to be left in peace. So, would what I wrote be OK if I changed it as follows? Karen: Don't think so. Yes, liberals do tend to be supporters of affirmative human rights, such as sexual engagement with a partner of the same sex, but this wasn't about an affirmative right. In my mind it was about the right to be left alone, the libertarian perspective. Same net effect so I would think liberals and libertarians would support this decision equally.

To: epicure who wrote (115496)	5/23/2005 6:22:32 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793843

"liberals tend to be supporters of equal rights and privileges for everyone"- to cast it as "support" for one position (imo) unnecessarily polarizes the whole thing from the outset, because of the way the language is used. One way to put it would be that the liberal interpretation of the idea of "equal rights and privileges for everyone" tends to support a particular position that has come to be known as gay rights, although not everyone who supports that position is liberal; while other interpretations of "equal rights and privileges for everyone" do not necessarily support the "gay rights" position or agenda, or only support some of it. Mentioning "gay rights" in this conversation might indeed be polarizing, but on the other hand failure to use the term might either require paragraphs of explanation when a simple term is available, or give the impression that anyone who doesn't support "gay rights" doesn't believe in rights for everyone, or even is a bigot. I believe you might actually agree with that interpretation, but it is unreasonable to expect others to paint themselves in the negative light that you would like them to be cast in. The question is are what have been called "gay rights", proper constitutional or legal and/or natural rights, and is it fair not to let homosexuals exercise them in certain ways. Thus to just say that these are an example of equal rights for all, and that it is wrong to in any way split them from rights in general, begs the question. I am open to another term other than "gay rights", or "homosexual rights", but I'm not sure that there is any other term that would be more effective at getting across the meaning intended and not have its own problems similar to or worse than the ones you have pointed out with using "gay rights". Tim