Because failing to give something to a group isn't the same as taking it away. You get that a marriage license grants you special government benefits, right? This is exactly what I meant by talking about how conservative believe that rights are only violated when something is taken away from someone, while liberals extend that to include things that we fail to give them but we believe they should have.
You do not normally get to live on someone else's social security benefits. You do not normally get to receive their pension. You do not normally get to receive someone else's medical benefits pre-tax. Thus, not having them is the normal state. There is no violation of your rights if you are not granted these benefits. See how by our definition of rights changes our view of this sort of issue?
Boy you sure love to be patronizing don't you? Do you really think the gays would care if they could get married if there wasn't certain benefits that marriage gave? If there weren't benefits to getting married over getting a civil union, they wouldn't really care about the difference. And yes, I do know that marriage gives special government benefits.
So following your logic, there was no need to give people of different colors of skin the right to marry, because that was giving them rights they wouldn't have had otherwise? But yet, when straight people get married, they get all these benefits that they wouldn't have had before. Any person who married another person of the opposite *** would get those benefits. By telling people they can't have those benefits if they marry someone of the same ***, you ARE taking those benefits away from them. Not only is that wrong (even by your book) it's discrimination.
Something I suspect we might agree on, I think the state sponsored marriage should be done away with completely. The government should have absolutely no say whatsoever in who can get married and who can't. If people want to get married via religious institution, fine. If people want to be legally tied to one another, so they can share health insurance, pensions, etc. they should get a civil union. Do away with the tax credits for being married, that's stupid. Getting tax credits for having kids I can understand since that actually costs money. Getting married doesn't cost anymore than the cost of the marriage license, which in most states is under $100 isn't it? There certainly aren't any sustained expense of being married, so I don't get why married people get a tax credit. To encourage people to get married I'm guessing, but why does the government care if people get married? So that they have kids so that the cycle of life continues? People already get a tax credit for having kids, and one doesn't need to get married to procreate.
You can claim that the right isn't interested in turning our country into a theocracy, but I've seen plenty of evidence that it does.
When? The GOP controlled both houses of congress and the White House for 6 years. Can you show me a single thing done at the federal level during that time which works towards turning our country into a theocracy? This is often claimed by screaming folks on the left, but it's amazing how it never actually happens.
Okay, that probably is a bit of a hyperbole on my part. But can you at least understand why those of us who aren't Christian might feel that way? Perhaps for you the reason to oppose *** marriage is because it would cost the tax payers more money, but that isn't ever the argument we hear against it. It's always "The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman!" or some variant of that.
Conservatives in several different states have tried to get person-hood amendments passed, so that legally, an embryo is a person. Why do they want to do this? Because they believe that life begins at conception because that's what it says in the bible. That is a great example of how some
conservatives are trying to pass laws that are based on theology.
Taking away a corrupt health care system is not infringing on anyone's rights. We're trying to fix what is broken. Most people who don't have health insurance can't afford it, and yet still make too much money to get Medicaid. There is something seriously wrong with that. I'm lucky that my mother is willing to pay for me to have health insurance while I'm in college. Even with my health insurance, I have to pay out of pocket for eye exams and my contacts, and all my prescriptions because my plan doesn't cover mental health. If it did, it would cost more than the prescriptions do.
Again, this has nothing to do with the differences in how left and right define rights.
Yes it does. You say that the right only views taking away people's rights as a problem, where as the left views not giving people rights in the first place as a problem. I specifically said that taking away a corrupt health care system is not infringing on anyone's rights. Besides complaining that they don't want to pay for other people's health problems, one of the biggest complaints I hear from the right against having a universal health care system, is that it would take away their choice. I don't see how that's any different than what health insurance companies do. They have a list of preferred providers, and if you want to have your medical bills paid for, you have to go to those doctors. How is that a choice? I suppose you could switch to a different health insurance company, but what if you have diabetes? What if you're pregnant? What if you have a history of ear infections? Those are all pre-existing conditions, and any new health insurance company you go to will not pay for any care related to those conditions. So once people pick a health insurance company, they're pretty much stuck with it unless they are healthy. Well, at least until 2014 when they're no longer allowed to do that, thanks to the health care reform that was passed.
I understand the different concepts between natural liberty and society given liberty. I just don't understand how you can call it liberty for people to die of illnesses that could have been treated, had their insurance company been willing to pay for it like they should have done. That doesn't even include the issue of people who can't afford health care.
Because liberty does not guarantee an outcome. Liberty simply means that no one else will step in and change your outcomes against your will. Even if it's for the better. There's a difference between arguing that we should do something because you think it's a nice thing to do and demanding that we do it because it's a violation of someone's rights if we don't.
So what you are saying, is that it's okay for a health insurance company to deny paying for treatment for a life-threatening condition, even though they have paid their premiums every month, because if they hadn't had the insurance in the first place they wouldn't have been able to afford it anyways, and they still would have died? That makes no logical sense whatsoever. If that's not what you were trying to say, please elaborate.
When you pay your premiums for health insurance, you are doing so under the belief that if you get sick, your insurance company will pay for you to get better. If you get sick, and the insurance company decides not to pay for you to get better, because it would cost them too much money, that IS stepping in and changing the outcome against your will. The insurance company paying for you to get better is not a "nice thing to do," it is what they owe their customers for them paying their premium. To not pay for their clients to get better, is essentially theft. They paid for a service they did not get. Edited, Jan 19th 2012 10:05pm by PigtailsOfDoom