Monday, September 14, 2009

Sinead's Hand

I saw this on Paul Roub's Facebook page (which now seem's to be the most convenient place to steal content for this blog):



Why does it seem like the people most rabidly pro-freedom are also the people most rabidly anti-freedom?

9 comments:

Robert Sievers said...

Dan,

Perhaps different people have different definitions of freedom. Freedom in one sense mean I can do whatever I want, to whomever I want, whenever I want. But I don't think any of us really believe that is what freedom is. Currently, our laws do not allow men to marry more than one wife either. So what's your point here?

Dan S said...

I define freedom as doing whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt other people. For instance, guns hurt other people, so I think there should be restrictions on them. Global warming will eventually hurt everyone, so I think we need social policy to reduce it.

Gay marriage hurts no one. I'm just saying that it is ironic that those who normally want freedom even at the expense of others (guns without restrictions, not paying taxes for the public good, etc) are the ones preventing the freedom of marrying whom one chooses.

And no, homosexuality is not like polygamy. It is like homosexuality. Equating it with polygamy is changing the subject.

Robert Sievers said...

Oh, I thought the subject was freedom, for example, the freedom for a man to marry his sister. But in reality the subject is homosexuality. Thank you for clarifying that it really wasn't about "freedom" at all.

brownie said...

If you are for doing whatever as long as it doesn't hurt others, then why is it different from polygamy? It doesn't hurt you if I have five wives, so why aren't you supporting the folks in Utah who want to what they want with their freedom (your definition)?

Dan S said...

I'd be for polygamy if women could also have multiple husbands. The problem with polygamy is that is usually harmful to the women.

But really, that still doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality.

Bob, it sounds like you are for freedom until you are against it. Kind of like state's rights?

Robert Sievers said...

Dan, I don't see your point. If you want to redefine marriage so that everyone can be "free", then redefine it to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. Otherwise, you are just as guilty as you claim I am for drawing a line, regardless of its location. Who are you to claim what is "harmful" for others? Muslims claim polygamy for men only is wonderful. Are you condemning Islam as a bad religion?

Are you or are you not willing to Embrace diversity!

We can disagree, and that's fine, but we are too good of friends to not call each other out when our views are internally inconsistent.

PG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Sievers said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PG said...

I really need to apologize for diving into this inane conversation. I'm going to delete my earlier comment.