can someone please explain to me the difference

[idav]

in light of the same sex marriage ban in NC
can someone please explain to me the difference
between...

"i can get married but you can't"
and
"i can practice my religion but you can't"

Thats cause the christians want to discriminate against all the pagans and wiccans wanting to have same sex marriages and wild orgies. People be player hating.

 

[Willamena]

Willamena, do I understand you to be saying that getting married to the person you love represents the right "to do whatever I want"?

Obviously the OP is looking at the comparison and seeing an issue of personal freedom. The rights loosely grouped as personal freedom, though, have to be interpreted in light of a bigger picture, like in this case the voice of the people. We can all think whatever we like, but we can't do whatever we like; unless we act as a people to make government work, it will work despite us.

Edit: Government isn't "them." Government is us: we, the people.

 

[waitasec]

No. That's anarchy.

it's anarchy if one doesn't own their culpability

 

[A Troubled Man]

in light of the same sex marriage ban in NC
can someone please explain to me the difference
between...

"i can get married but you can't"
and
"i can practice my religion but you can't"

Stunning exhibition of hypocrisy, isn't it?

 

[waitasec]

isn't equality a form of balance?

 

[fantome profane]

They are offset by the right to vote and the rights of the state to govern the people. I'm not sure about the United States, but in Canada's Charter we have a statement that says that no right shall "abrogate or derogate" from any other. If this is what the people voted, then this is what the people want and the state is right to make it law, until and unless the people vote again.

But that is the whole point of Canada's charter of rights is to protect individual rights from majority votes. What they just did in N.Carolina would be as if we had a referendum to remove individual rights. This is not democracy, it is tyranny of the majority.

 

[Willamena]

it's anarchy if one doesn't own their culpability

That's ambiguous. If I read it right, my response is that anarchy is full personal culpability, i.e. not held to any authority, like law, i.e. nothing we have in the world today.

But what did you mean?

 

[waitasec]

That's ambiguous.


If I read it right, my response is that anarchy is full personal culpability, i.e. not held to any authority, like law, i.e. nothing we have in the world today.

But what did you mean?

when i read anarchy i understand disorder.

everyone has the right to do whatever they want as everyone cannot disown their personal responsibility/culpability for their actions as that would bring disorder/anarchy.
having said that...when you asked me

What right do you see being violated? The right to "do whatever I want"?

in essence, the answer would be yes.

 

[waitasec]

But that is the whole point of Canada's charter of rights is to protect individual rights from majority votes. What they just did in N.Carolina would be as if we had a referendum to remove individual rights. This is not democracy, it is tyranny of the majority.

this...

 

[beerisit]

But that is the whole point of Canada's charter of rights is to protect individual rights from majority votes. What they just did in N.Carolina would be as if we had a referendum to remove individual rights. This is not democracy, it is tyranny of the majority.

Democracy is exactly that.

 

[fantome profane]

Democracy is exactly that.

Then "God" help us all.

 

[waitasec]

Democracy is exactly that.

but within this imperfect system we have the freedom of speech...

there is no door that can lock out ideas

 

[Willamena]

when i read anarchy i understand disorder.

everyone has the right to do whatever they want as everyone cannot disown their personal responsibility/culpability for their actions as that would bring disorder/anarchy.
having said that...when you asked me

in essence, the answer would be yes.

Anarchy is "the right to do whatever you want," or to put it another way, do as you will (as it hurt no one).

 

[waitasec]

Anarchy is "the right to do whatever you want," or to put it another way, do as you will (as it hurt no one).

i think we are arguing semantics...what i meant was disorder...imbalance...inequality

 

[waitasec]

how does same sex marriages hurt/affect anyone who isn't involved in the marriage?
as in how does one practicing their religion hurt/affect anyone who isn't involved in the religion, unless it is a part of their religion to hurt/affect those that are not involved in the religion?

seems to me this is the the difference

 

[Nakosis]

in light of the same sex marriage ban in NC
can someone please explain to me the difference
between...

"i can get married but you can't"
and
"i can practice my religion but you can't"

Same sex marriage isn't a protected right.
Religion is.

You can implement it at the Federal level.
In the absence of Federal protection,
You can implement it at the State level.

The majority can vote in laws with the exception of laws that violate the protected rights of individuals. You'd need to get that right protected at some level. Otherwise majority rules.

 

[beerisit]

Otherwise majority rules.

Yes and that is called democracy, better than most but not perfect.

 

[waitasec]

Same sex marriage isn't a protected right.
Religion is.

You can implement it at the Federal level.
In the absence of Federal protection,
You can implement it at the State level.

The majority can vote in laws with the exception of laws that violate the protected rights of individuals. You'd need to get that right protected at some level. Otherwise majority rules.

i understand that but what i'm trying to have explained is the fundamental difference of why same sex marriages are not protected as religion is, since they both involve a persons right to choose.

i'll put it like this,
it is understood that the intent to harm someone is not a protected right
why would same sex marriage fall under the same umbrella as the intent to harm someone

 

[Nakosis]

i understand that but what i'm trying to have explained is the fundamental difference of why same sex marriages are not protected as religion is, since they both involve a persons right to choose.

i'll put it like this,
it is understood that the intent to harm someone is not a protected right
why would same sex marriage fall under the same umbrella as the intent to harm someone

You are looking for reason?
The opinion of the majority doesn't have to be reasonable.

I think a majority of people are persuaded by rhetoric not fact or logic. People skilled in rhetoric influence the opinion of the masses. Some get especially skilled in rhetoric, among them many religious leaders.

It's kind of amazing how one well written speech can control huge numbers of people. Facts and logic fail in the presence of great rhetoric.

 

[FearGod]

in light of the same sex marriage ban in NC
can someone please explain to me the difference
between...

"i can get married but you can't"
and
"i can practice my religion but you can't"

Why, was it allowed in NC before ?