Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
The way to best counter what you and those in the eleven states that voted
to "protect" marriage espouse is to demonstrate against your penchant for
legislation intended to restrict the sexual behavior of consenting adults or the
reproductive rights of women, by boycotting your tourist and convention
venues, and other currently conducted commerce that the rest of us do with
you or your business interests. There are still many areas in the U.S.
where the majority of the voters have no interest in using their state
constitutions as instruments of discrmination, intolerance, or to extend
the police and prosecutory powers of government. The consequences of
your political philosophy will be more evenly shouldered by you and everyone
you intend to disenfranchise and control if the rest of us avoid doing
business with you. If we don't act to discourage you, who will you next
focus on when your goals of anti gay and anti women's reproductive rights agendas have been fully achieved?
If you "want to have the same say in a child that I would be responsible for that the woman does" , why not ask your lawyer to draw up a contract
that you can present to any woman that you intend to have intercourse
with, that informs her that as a pre-condition of mating with you, she must
agree to surrender her right to choose whether or not to endure a full term
pregnancy and birth that might result from you fertilizing her ovum?
Are you so insecure about how desirable you are as a sex partner to members
of the opposite sex that you are unwilling to allow women to choose between
you and your pre-natal "paternal rights", versus other potential partners who
recognize a woman's right to choose whether to host an embryo in her body
until it grows large and robust enough to sustain itself?
You feel strongly about having "the same say" as the woman who must carry
and deliver the product of your mutual conception. Other men do not, and
are willing to cede the choice entirely to their female partner. Why not
conduct your own interpersonal relations with members of the opposite sex
without attempting to interfere with the existing right of choice currently
enjoyed by most women of reproductive age in the U.S., by advocating
legislation to restrict access to safe and legal abortion?
You are free to advocate for equal pre-natal paternal reproductive rights
for yourself, but if you advocate legislating your rights so that you will
be on equal footing with the male competition who largely are pro-choice,
you demonstrate that you are not willing to endure the consequences of
your position which even you seem to recognize as diminishing from your
attractiveness as a potential mate.
|
First of all, I would like to commend your typing technique. It must be quite a trick to reach the keyboard while looking down your nose from that far
. Maybe instead of regurgitating whatever line you have been brainwashed with, you would try to read what I was saying and not just jump over 2 carefully selected lines. My point was that the way many liberals frame the gay marriage issue is wrong, and they do not appreciate when they have the same tactics used against them. They try to say how anti-gay marriage legislation are "hate laws" and bigoted, giving the impression they are morally superior. I was taking an issue that they could be seen to fall on the other moral side of (abortion) and framing it in their same way they view gay marriage, as a discrimination issue and something that is morally abhorrent.
You also made alot of assumptions about my child murder views (as well as labeling me "insecure" which seems to have no logical justification, and was made by jumping to many conclusions that could not rationally be seen in the couple of lines I typed on the subject of child murder) so I will elaborate on those so you won't be as misinformed. You seem to think that males are largely pro-child murder, do you have any evidence for this? The whole right to abortion arises from a legal decision, and was not voted on. It was based purely on the opinions of 9 people who happened to be positions of power at the time. And it could easily be overturned by 9 people who are currently on the bench. Many laws have been passed in the states restricting the womens right to unilaterally murder their offspring, some of which have been overturned by various state courts. I don't personally care, as I have no desire to have children and make sure to use protection. But where I find inequality is that women can choose to carry a baby to term or kill it, with the father having no say in a decision which could greatly effect his life. Around 2 months ago, a woman won a paternity judgement against Sean "Puffy" Combs where I think he was ordered to pay approx. $50,000 per month in child support (can't remember the figure, but it was high and I don't feel like checking it exactly). Now, this child arose from a one-night stand. There was no reason to believe that either desired a child, yet she was able to cash in off his wealth, and he had no recourse. This is where I feel an inequality comes in. It has nothing to do with whatever you were trying to say. And unlike most liberals, I'm willing to work through the system to change these rules, and accept defeat if they don't change.
More on topic, I think the quoted post shows how many liberals think, namely that because they think a view is correct that the majority hold it to be the truth and anyone who doesn't is a "bigot" or "redneck" or "fundamentalist" or whatever the buzzword is. They don't acknowledge that a differing view can have the same merit and think anyone who disagrees is automatically inferior. That is why you can have some in the media still thinking that the election was stolen, or that it's result is somehow invalid. I couldn't personally stand Clinton, but when he was re-elected in 1996 I didn't run around crying, throwing fits, or threatening to leave the country. I accepted it, and took a long term view.