Thread: Rights versus Societal Norms

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

I keep coming back to this issue as we discuss Gay Rights and Abortion and Free Speech and nearly any of the many hot topics around here.

Legal Secularists has had a field day the past 60 years inventing rights and then jamming them down the throats of the majority. The basic approach is to define a right, claim it's in the constitution, then start litigating against the wishes of the majority.

A short list:

The right to not be offended: Used to abrogate the free speech rights of Christians in public schools

This is a completely false comment. Christians have free speech rights in public schools. They can talk about god, they can pray all they want. The school just can't have a sanctioned event, can't have set aside time for kids to pray. NO violation of free speech. In fact, its the constitution and separation of church and state that makes them not being able to have school sponsored (in state run schools) religious activities.

The right to privacy: Used to change the legal status of pre-born humans from Huh? to inert material that can be gotten rid of like a bowel movement. This one is also being warped to try and include any perversion that puts a stick in the eye of traditionalists

Another complete fallacy, what does this have to do with right to privacy and abortion? Huh? So a women doesn't have rights to her own body? Really? Please make logical arguments not these complete stretches of reality and absurd comments

The right to access the money of other people: This is most mind boggling one. We clearly have a right to be secure in our property. Yet for some reason, the right to private property yields to the general welfare clause.....

Anyway, these are not well defined and poorly written, I admit it.

But here's the real topic. When do societal norms legitimately limit rights?

Limits on Pornography, from zoning laws on strip bars to where and how pornographic materials may be distributed can be thought of as a limitation on free speech.

Limits on Religious Speech: wait, can't use this one since the rights being claimed against the right of religious speech was originally a minority right. The idea seemed to be that religious speech was poison and could be abrogated if anyone in a public school complained.....

So have it. Anyone think of a better example? I would bring up Gay marriage again, but we have sort of beat that one to death.

YOu dont' want to bring up gay marriage because it fit nowhere in your societal norms argument. Rights are rights, plain and simple. The gays not being able to marry is a violation of their rights. Gays getting legal gay marriage does absolutely nothing to violate your rights, or those that are against gay marriage.THey are still free to think and speak negatively of gay people if they want to, they are not force to personally accept gay marriage, they are not forced to marry those of the same sex. So gay marriage has nothing to do with your question of when societal norms and rights being "jammed down your throats". that is the most tired and ignorant comment anybody can possibly make. Time and time again its shown to be completely idiotic to make such a claim. When giving someone else rights has absolutely no effect on your life, what is being "rammed down our throats". You really seem to lack what this country was all about and why the constitution and the bill of rights was established, to prevent the majority from violating rights of the minority

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

Here's a quote from Justice Kennedy in his summary of the majority opinion, an opinion which overturned sodomy laws in the state of Texas. (Lawrence v Texas). He also mentions Bowers, a SCOTUS ruling that upheld anti-sodomy laws, which was overturned by Lawrennce.

"In our own constitutional system the deficiencies in Bowers became even more apparent in the years following its announcement. The 25 States with laws prohibiting the relevant conduct referenced in the Bowers decision are reduced now to 13, of which 4 enforce their laws only against homosexual conduct. In those States where sodomy is still proscribed, whether for same-sex or heterosexual conduct, there is a pattern of non-enforcement with respect to consenting adults acting in private.... "

Although this section is only part of the argument, it clearly is using changing societal values as a partial justification for the majority's opinion in Lawrence.

Another stupid example. People having sex is consensual. Nobody is getting harmed by the so called "sodomy". In fact, preventing people from doing these consensual and harmless sexual acts is violating their rights. Overturning these antiquated laws that actually violate people's freedoms does nothing to harm or violate the rights of anybody else. It doesn't force people have sodomizing sex, doesn't have any effect what so ever on the people that want sodomy laws on place.

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

This thread is a perfect example of why substance doesn't sell. I am bumping it because of today's discussion with Cicero where he claimed that because the Bible is a book of fiction, it cannot be used as the basis for any legislation. This is the right place to explore this topic, so if anyone cares to join in, we can get away from whack-a-mole for a few minutes.

Should societal norms, values and beliefs play a central role in our laws?

It's amazing you think this thread has any substance. it's the same old tired crap argument that is refuted time and time again, every time its brought up. Especially in gay marriage. It's complete and utter bullshit in an attempt to make an argument where you really have none. There is no logical argument to prevent gays from gaining same legal rights as heterosexuals. ONly thing is bigotry, and that's not a logical argument