Gay Rights & Abortion

[chalice_thunder]

Now remember kids, when demonizing your enemy, be sure to paint with a broad brush.

Good one! Welcome to CF, fellow Seattle-ite!

 

[Brennin]

Good one! Welcome to CF, fellow Seattle-ite!

I didn't know you were in Seattle! There is an awesome chocolate/candy/dessert shop in the "gay" part of Seattle (Sorry, I can't remember the real name. Capitol something or other, is it?)

 

[chalice_thunder]

I didn't know you were in Seattle! There is an awesome chocolate/candy/dessert shop in the "gay" part of Seattle (Sorry, I can't remember the real name. Capitol something or other, is it?)

Born and raised here (except for 5 years of childhood on Oahu)

Capitol Hill ~ The Dilletante
Oh my - another chocolate fiend

 

[Brennin]

Born and raised here (except for 5 years of childhood on Oahu)

Capitol Hill ~ The Dilletante
Oh my - another chocolate fiend

That's it! I'll have to tell you about my Seattle trip sometime.

 

[chalice_thunder]

That's it! I'll have to tell you about my Seattle trip sometime.

Cool - glad you like our city.

 

[Texas Lynn]

saw this link (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/14711130.htm) in another thread

and this puzzled me



anyone have any idea why?
what connection can there be between the two issues?

As someone else said, it's about the right to privacy; and just realpolitik, most people are on the same side on both issues.

furthermore, what if a 'gay gene' is discovered and parents could choose to abort a gay child?

Certainly that's a consideration.

 

[Texas Lynn]

LOVE the way the Republicans banded together on this thread to start bashing liberals and Democrats.

Gay rights and abortion are really two separate, distinct issues -- except within six months of elections when they can be strung together as divisive campaign issues to try to rally social conservatives to the Republican Party.

Yep. Kind of like George Wallace's campaign plan to "promise them the moon and holler 'N*****!'"

 

[quatona]

anyone have any idea why?
what connection can there be between the two issues?

I guess both deal with giving people rights to decide for themselves. That´s all. One might suspect that they are based on similar worldviews or societal axioms.

furthermore, what if a 'gay gene' is discovered and parents could choose to abort a gay child?

What do you mean "what if"?
Then, if they have the unrestricted right to abort the child, they would decide whether to abort it or not because of this property, just like they might in view of any other genetically predictable condition.

 

[rebel_conservative]

several posts have mentioned privacy and liberty... but the drive for gay rights is about neither. whilst I can conceive of abortion rights in the context of liberty and privacy, the drive for gay rights is a civil rights struggle. gays have no more liberty or privacy if their marriage is recognised by the state, nor do they have any more privacy.

 

[quatona]

several posts have mentioned privacy and liberty... but the drive for gay rights is about neither. whilst I can conceive of abortion rights in the context of liberty and privacy, the drive for gay rights is a civil rights struggle. gays have no more liberty or privacy if their marriage is recognised by the state, nor do they have any more privacy.

Well, you may want to take into consideration that those who plead for gay-marriage to be possible, do not share this your opinion. That´s why many people are for both rights in question.
Prohibiting gay-marriage and allowing public prayer are two completely different things, either - a lot of differences could be pointed out, after all. Yet, these ideas are often held by the same people, and that´s because those people have a certain worldview in common: e.g. religiously motivated conservativism.

 

[rebel_conservative]

Well, you may want to take into consideration that those who plead for gay-marriage to be possible, do not share this your opinion. That´s why many people are for both rights in question.

I am not stating that I support or oppose these rights, only stating that the movement for gay rights is a civil rights struggle and not one for liberty or privacy. would you care to convince me otherwise?

Prohibiting gay-marriage and allowing public prayer are two completely different things, either - a lot of differences could be pointed out, after all. Yet, these ideas are often held by the same people, and that´s because those people have a certain worldview in common: e.g. religiously motivated conservativism.

I agree there are no real links between the two - aside from similar people supporting both causes.

so yes, the people may well be the same, but do you see extensive links between public prayer groups and anti-gay marriage groups?

 

[quatona]

I am not stating that I support or oppose these rights,

The way you ask this question leaves not much doubt about that, though. But sure, this is not the topic.

only stating that the movement for gay rights is a civil rights struggle and not one for liberty or privacy. would you care to convince me otherwise?

No, I don´t even want to. What I am trying to communicate is that fighting for liberty and fighting for civil rights are often founded in the same mindset, motivation, intention, axioms or worldview.

so yes, the people may well be the same, but do you see extensive links between public prayer groups and anti-gay marriage groups?

I am not really familiar with american politics, but am I wrong in suspecting that there are groups who promote both purposes?
So what´s so confusing about groups that postulate several different things? I am under the impression that each political party is such a group.

 

[rebel_conservative]

The way you ask this question leaves not much doubt about that, though. But sure, this is not the topic.

indeed.

my personal opinions are opposed to the civil rights that gays demand and vehemently against liberal abortion laws, but yes, my opinions are not relevant to the thread.

No, I don´t even want to. What I am trying to communicate is that fighting for liberty and fighting for civil rights are often founded in the same mindset, motivation, intention, axioms or worldview.

on the contrary, liberty and civil rights can be quite contradictory. liberty means freedom from the government, civil rights is expecting government to provide you with something.

I am not really familiar with american politics, but am I wrong in suspecting that there are groups who promote both purposes?
So what´s so confusing about groups that postulate several different things? I am under the impression that each political party is such a group.

political parties are 'broad tents' appealing to the greatest number of people that they can, but with a core base. it is true that people who support school prayer would also be likely to oppose gay marriage, but there is very little to connect these two causes, except for the mentality behind it.

 

[JGG]

on the contrary, liberty and civil rights can be quite contradictory. liberty means freedom from the government, civil rights is expecting government to provide you with something.

I disagree. Liberty means freedom, not necessarily from government, but from other citizens, groups, etc. Civil Rights refers to the rights one receives as a citizen of a nation. Civil Rights is a part of liberty.

 

[rebel_conservative]

I disagree. Liberty means freedom, not necessarily from government, but from other citizens, groups, etc. Civil Rights refers to the rights one receives as a citizen of a nation. Civil Rights is a part of liberty.

where liberty means protection from citizens/groups, its purpose is still 'negative' and this is why liberty and civil rights are essentially contradictory, liberty is always 'negative' whereas civil rights are 'positive'

 

[JGG]

where liberty means protection from citizens/groups, its purpose is still 'negative' and this is why liberty and civil rights are essentially contradictory, liberty is always 'negative' whereas civil rights are 'positive'

So you're saying liberty defines that things that others cannot do to you, and civil rights are the things that you can do? Am I following?

 

[rebel_conservative]

So you're saying liberty defines that things that others cannot do to you, and civil rights are the things that you can do? Am I following?

essentially, yes, but we are getting very far from the OP here.

gay rights, marriage, adoption rights etc are civil rights, the state agrees to grant certain privileges.

abortion rights is about liberty and privacy, the state can not tell a woman what to do with her body. (as it happens, I do not agree with this, but this is how it is framed)

 

[JGG]

essentially, yes, but we are getting very far from the OP here.

gay rights, marriage, adoption rights etc are civil rights, the state agrees to grant certain privileges.

abortion rights is about liberty and privacy, the state can not tell a woman what to do with her body. (as it happens, I do not agree with this, but this is how it is framed)

But they're the same thing. Gay rights could be framed as freedom from discriminatory practice, and abortion could be framed as the right to have control over one's body. I agree, its a little off topic, but might be worth pinning down.

EDITED to make more sense.

 

[rebel_conservative]

But they're the same thing. Gay rights could be framed as freedom from discriminatory practice, and abortion could be framed as the right to have control over one's body. I agree, its a little off topic, but might be worth pinning down.

EDITED to make more sense.

whilst we can cleverly use language to portray gay rights as a 'freedom from' it does not make sense in real terms. it is not a freedom from anything, it is asking the government to bestow privileges upon gay relationships.

also I would contend (but not in this thread) that it is not discriminatory practice to say that marriage can only be between man and woman.

 

[quatona]

on the contrary, liberty and civil rights can be quite contradictory. liberty means freedom from the government, civil rights is expecting government to provide you with something.

Be that as it may, in this particular case those people you are talking about are quite obviously not seeing them as contradictory. Wouldn´t the majority of the people in those movements support the other goal as well, the responsible persons in those movements wouldn´t try link the movements. That´s just the way it is, and I have no idea why that poses a problem for you, other than you disagree with both goals. Those who disagree with one of the two goals will probably leave their group.
What is left, is the issue of persons having several ideas that are not linked to each other in terms of the concepts you apply. Which isn´t an issue at all, but the case with most everyone.

political parties are 'broad tents' appealing to the greatest number of people that they can, but with a core base. it is true that people who support school prayer would also be likely to oppose gay marriage, but there is very little to connect these two causes, except for the mentality behind it.

And now you have persons that support two distinct purposes joinging in groups that support those two purposes. Not the greatest number possible, not one, but exactly two. I fail to see the problem.