If that's the battle to fight then you should do that instead of implying that gays shouldn't get equal treatment under the law.
Someone should explain the difference between inferring and implying.
You have inferred that I'm saying gays (or anyone) shouldn't get equal treatment under the law.
I have not implied that in any way, shape or form.
To say that I have (or am) is a rather rude and unsupportable accusation.
I believe everyone deserves equal treatment under the law.
The problems that people (apparently you included) so often overlook is that the government seems to be in the business of treating different groups differently, handing out special benefits to some and not to others (often at the expense of others in fact.) I am advocate of eliminating every single bit of that.
In my view the only role or responsibility the government has is to protect the basic rights of life, liberty and property (as well as the rights to personal defense, trade/exchange, and association/dis-association, etc.) of every single individual. Period. The issue is that some people want to infringe on some of these rights for the benefit of others who wish to claim certain other "rights" (e.g., the "right" to be provided specific forms of insurance contracts or the "right" to specific employment benefits or the "right" to use any business regardless of the wishes of the business owner.)
At this point I feel I've been as crystal clear as I possibly can be. Any further claim by you that I am implying anyone shouldn't get equal treatment under the law can only be explained by sheer dishonesty or willful ignorance.
P.S. I would only add that its not always as simple as saying "everyone should be equal under the law" because often the law create specific inequalities and those must be eliminated first. Otherwise you're not really saying anything useful.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David
If that's the battle to fight then you should do that instead of implying that gays shouldn't get equal treatment under the law.
Someone should explain the difference between inferring and implying.
You have inferred that I'm saying gays (or anyone) shouldn't get equal treatment under the law.
I have not implied that in any way, shape or form.
To say that I have (or am) is a rather rude and unsupportable accusation.
I believe everyone deserves equal treatment under the law.
The problems that people (apparently you included) so often overlook is that the government seems to be in the business of treating different groups differently, handing out special benefits to some and not to others (often at the expense of others in fact.) I am advocate of eliminating every single bit of that.
In my view the only role or responsibility the government has is to protect the basic rights of life, liberty and property (as well as the rights to personal defense, trade/exchange, and association/dis-association, etc.) of every single individual. Period. The issue is that some people want to infringe on some of these rights for the benefit of others who wish to claim certain other "rights" (e.g., the "right" to be provided specific forms of insurance contracts or the "right" to specific employment benefits or the "right" to use any business regardless of the wishes of the business owner.)
At this point I feel I've been as crystal clear as I possibly can be. Any further claim by you that I am implying anyone shouldn't get equal treatment under the law can only be explained by sheer dishonesty or willful ignorance.
P.S. I would only add that its not always as simple as saying "everyone should be equal under the law" because often the law create specific inequalities and those must be eliminated first. Otherwise you're not really saying anything useful.
Apple chooses LOVE over Hate.
Not surprised that anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal stance is labeled a "hater". That's pretty intolerant and close minded thinking.