“Rights” is such an absolute term. It implies that only 1 context exists for all things, and only 1 solution exists, and this same 1 solution should be applied to ∞ contexts.
Crazy talk, my nillas. Crazy talk.
As many who have read me here before (both of you!) know, I agree plenty with conservatives but am basically a liberal. Why: I believe we must impose a fair and rational society, and we cannot allow “free markets” or “social darwinism” exclusively to define it. It doesn’t mean I’m against those things, but that I realize they alone are not a solution.
Big surprise: we need more than a single principle to rule ourselves.
One area I differ with conservatives is the idea that there is an absolute, right, moral, correct 1 way for us all to live. Liberals have the same idea, but their 1 way is many ways, which is equally dysfunctional. In fact, I laugh at both parties for their wholesale ignorance of history and philosophy. “The 1 way, man!!! It’s the truth and the light!!!” — more likely a camouflaged control mechanism. But I digress.
Many conservatives, wanting their kids to grow up with clear ideals, are not fond of homosexuality. They also cite some social problems with homosexuality, like its increased correlation with pedophilia, coprophagia, promiscuity, AIDS, et al. I don’t deny any of this. All I say is that we need places for fags to be fags, and for conservatives to be conservatives, and it ain’t gonna be the same places. No 1 rule for ₶ groups or places, right?
If we talk in terms of rights, fags have the right to be fags… that makes sense. Live and let them live.
But by the same token, and here’s where get in trouble with absolutes (univeralism, 1 rule for all people) like “rights” —
If we talk in terms of rights, conservatives also have the right to be conservatives… which does not include fags. Live and let live, separately.
Now we’ve got a crisis.
Michael Moore, a fat turd of a human being who makes his money pandering to idiot leftists, has a good point here. So does Phred Phelps. That’s why this story is interesting: two people with legitimate points duking it out.
But we who care about living in a nice place not constantly divided by conflict would like a resolution.
Mine is simple. Some parts of town are sodomy-friendly, and others are not. Any other solution is oppression to one or more groups.
As the West gets increasingly divided, we’re going to see more of this action. One reason many conservatives retreat to religious communities is not so much that they love Jesus, but that they love the idea that their society has a consensus upon its values and those are conservative — read: historically proven to succeed — values.
I like the idea of anarchy zones, too. Don’t make the rest of us pay for them, but let them rule themselves, and legalize whatever they want. Drugs. Sodomy. Prostitution. Murder. Pedophilia. The world always needs frontiers and bad lawless horrible places for it to filter out its out-of-control denizens.
If you live in a conservative zone, and want to do a ton of drugs and sodomize boars, you need to go to an anarchy zone. Sure, you lose some of the benefits of a conservative zone — but other citizens gain the freedom to not have your lifestyle screw up their lives. And you can do all the drugs and boar anal you need.
“Freedom” for all!