Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> I thought the idea that there would actually be enough votes to modify
>> the CA constitution to treat gays as sub-human would never have passed
>> either.
> 
>     If you want to have a reasonable conversation, it helps if you don't 
> editorialize by using words like "subhuman", because I'll be happy to 
> counter-obfuscate.

BTW, they're treated as "subhuman" because the majority actually passed laws 
to remove from them the right to marry who they wished, which they already 
had. I'd say passing a law to allow enslaving a particular group of people 
would be treating them as "subhuman" also. They aren't human enough to get 
the same rights to marriage as the other humans get.

As for muslims and democracy, I think I was using "democracy" to include 
basic human rights. Of course you can have a democracy in which the majority 
vote to stone apostates, outlaw freedom of speech, burn suspected witches, 
castrate homosexuals, presume non-Muslims are unable to tell the truth in 
court, kill female relatives who go out in public without an escort, etc. 
Hence it's perfectly reasonable that a majority of people who want Sharia 
also want democracy. They just don't want the usual human rights that go 
with democracy in most democratic countries. I'm not sure what the right 
word for the group of behaviors would be.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message