US anti-gay rights senator Roy Ashburn comes out as gay

reply to post by Bobbox1980

Up until now I have not seen one mention by anyone in this thread
of the spirit, the concept, the idea of unalienable rights.

Maybe because it's not especially relevant to the thread?

A right is simply a local convention amongst a group. A contract. An agreement to certain privilages. Nothing more.

unalienable rights

Give me an example of an unalienable right. Do you have an unalienable right to live? Ok, so what happens if your neighbor murders you? You die. Your life has been alienated from you. How can you say that it was unalienable?

"Oh, but that would be illegal" you say. Ok, but legality is simply an arbitrary convention, and even within our own laws there are conventions that allow for people to be lawfully alienated from their lives.

Being able to marry the one you love and getting all the rights
and privileges therein is an unalienable right.

Marriage in the sense I think you mean is simply a custom. To say that anyone "has the right" to marry isn't really any different than suggesting that people "have the right" to shake hands.

Marriage is a cultural agreement to behave in a certain way. It is certainly possible for such a custom to include or preclude specific individuals from participating in it.



[edit on 9-3-2010 by LordBucket]

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by scubagravy
This just proves that politicians are liars!!!

No, it proves that some, few, politicians listen to their constituents. He listened to the voices in his state against his own wishes. THAT should be applauded.

Actually ideally the representative politician is not there to give treats to his group, he represents the constitution and his constituents in it. THere is an implication in a representative repulbic that those in it demonstrate and use wisdom, not entitlement politics. Voting for corrosive minority special issue bills has no end if it's strictly about holding a scepter of power. Gays will vote for gays, addicts will vote for addicts, blacks for black, thieves will vote for theives etc etc, THis was not the intent. Yes those are tendecies displayed often but they are also serious corrosive flaws and result in a race to find novel entitlements when none existed and can only lead to avoidable conflicts and bankruptcy(sound familiar). Governing to failure is not good governance, governing for sustainability is the acual purpose, too bad that everyone seems to have forgotten it and nobody is lining up to take the blame for the inevitable trainwreck. Gov't serves best which serves least, seems like those that look for payback for distributing unearned spoils and swag, should remember that when and if pitchforks and torches fill the streets...

[edit on 9-3-2010 by thatredpill]

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by Nutter

 

Why is he lying if he doesn't admit to being gay? Who cares? Why should I care if he is, or isn't?

He obeyed the wishes of his constituents. I'd vote for him in a heart beat. That's something to celebrate, not condemn.

He did not vote for his constituents when a tax bill was introduced.

He's just trying to save his ass.

This is not in the line of "All blacks must vote for Obama".

This is in line with "a black politician voting for slavery".

So if you support a black man voting his white constituents pro-slavery platform . Then I guess you are right in supporting this gay man for what he did.

Originally posted by Nutter
I will not leave the guy alone. He betrayed his constituents. He betrayed his brothern (gay people). He betrayed his wife. He betrayed his daughters.

I'm sure it seems that way since his hypocrisy has obviously hit a nerve on your feelings towards Gay Rights. That does not make him a traitor though, because he never pledged allegiance to the Gay Community, now did he?

Hell, I find Tiger Woods' excapades far less of betrayal than this.

You actually care about the whole Tiger Woods thing? Please tell me you are joking.

Who needs false flag events when the whole world is concerned about how many affairs a global sports star has had, and the exposing of a gay senator who has opposed bills supportive of Gay Rights.

Originally posted by Annee
This is not in the line of "All blacks must vote for Obama".

This is in line with "a black politician voting for slavery".

So if you support a black man voting his white constituents pro-slavery platform . Then I guess you are right in supporting this gay man for what he did.

Sorry, Annee, but that analogy is not a fitting one.

It would be more like a Republican voter telling everyone that they should not vote for Obama because his policies are flawed, then that person going ahead and voting for Obama.

Somebody saw him voting for Obama and tells everyone that he did so. Word gets around that the Republican voter voted for Obama. Information that he has a right to keep private (his vote selection attached to his name) has been spread to everyone.

--------

Are all politicians supposed to agree and have a unified view on all issues and if there is one they do not agree on should they be tossed out of the party? Are they all required to state immediately in public as soon as there is descent on a political issue? Should every politician put their own views and opinions on a pedestal whilst disregarding the wishes and desires of the majority of those in their party?

[edit on 9/3/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Originally posted by Annee
This is not in the line of "All blacks must vote for Obama".

This is in line with "a black politician voting for slavery".

So if you support a black man voting his white constituents pro-slavery platform . Then I guess you are right in supporting this gay man for what he did.

Sorry, Annee, but that analogy is not a fitting one.

It would be more like a Republican voter telling everyone that they should not vote for Obama because his policies are flawed, then that person going ahead and voting for Obama.

Somebody saw him voting for Obama and tells everyone that he did so. Word gets around that the Republican voter voted for Obama. Information that he has a right to keep private (his vote selection attached to his name) has been spread to everyone.

--------

Are all politicians supposed to agree and have a unified view on all issues and if there is one they do not agree on should they be tossed out of the party? Are they all required to state immediately in public as soon as there is descent on a political issue? Should every politician put their own views and opinions on a pedestal whilst disregarding the wishes and desires of the majority of those in their party?

[edit on 9/3/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Disagree. I find that analogy exactly correct.

And it doesn't come from me. It comes from a discussion on Out Q radio.

Originally posted by Annee
Disagree. I find that analogy exactly correct.

And it doesn't come from me. It comes from a discussion on Out Q radio.

Oh, I thought it was from you, sorry. I respect your right to disagree, but...

To me it just seems that analogy is purposely stated to elicit an emotional response to the story. Did the gay senator come out and say he hated gays, or he wants to put gay people into a slavery system? No. People are just assuming because he opposed Gay Marriage that he hates gays and does not want them to have any rights. So by using that analogy, people are trying to equate support of slavery with being against Gay Marriage. Well if he is against gay rights then he must be...

Originally posted by Annee
This is not in the line of "All blacks must vote for Obama".

This is in line with "a black politician voting for slavery".

So if you support a black man voting his white constituents pro-slavery platform . Then I guess you are right in supporting this gay man for what he did.

I'll even go one further.

This is in line with a closet Jewish person working for the Iranian regime.

Would we call this person a self hating liar? I would.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
I'm sure it seems that way since his hypocrisy has obviously hit a nerve on your feelings towards Gay Rights. That does not make him a traitor though, because he never pledged allegiance to the Gay Community, now did he?

So then he lied to get elected. Correct?

You actually care about the whole Tiger Woods thing? Please tell me you are joking.

I could not care any less about what Tiger Woods did. But, he wasn't running for office where he votes on laws about percuring prostitutes.

Unlike the gay senator.

Originally posted by Nutter

I'll even go one further.

This is in line with a closet Jewish person working for the Iranian regime.

Would we call this person a self hating liar? I would.

Absolutely! If you are really being honest with yourself - - you see the depth of what it really is.