If you could change anything in history?

[jasey]

Ah yes, because Saudi Arabia pushes for the state to stay out of the business of homosexuals.

I don't see the issue you've picked here, I don't support any legislation on this topic - in a libertarian society we'd simply be battling against one another for the attitudes of the people, and thats another debate.

I am saying that by holding the opinion you do, you are encouraging other people who would support legislation solidifying the opinion to go further with it. You are a type of supporter. Let me quote myself so you can re-read what I just said in this post in my previous post.

You may not support legislation but by supporting and even 'campaigning' that point of view you are encouraging the same around you among others who may and probably would support legislation. Not everyone is content to have their view and sit on it politely.

Let me make an example. There is a country called Dystopia and the country is founded on the basis that the state will stay out of the personal lives of its citizens. Everything is fine for a while but, as humans, some of us will naturally form a bias or an opinion on something regarding the personal lives of Dystopians - like homosexuality. It starts with one person. They believe that public homosexuality is damaging in this case. That person is you, Daniel. You are that citizen. They don't do anything about their opinion and sit on it content to believe what they believe. One day they meet another citizen who has independently developed the same opinion because, in Dystopia, people obey the values that the nation was founded on and don't usually discuss things like this. Now, Daniel, you and your peer who shares your opinion that public homosexuality is damaging or immoral have connected over this.

You may or may not talk about it after the initial realisation but you can be certain that two other people in Dystopia have connected over the same thing. No one can be sure why - perhaps a homosexual has wronged a citizen of Dystopia and they carry a grudge on the whole homosexual population. Perhaps some believe that any public sexuality is wrong but take on public homosexuality because it is a smaller stone to crush since homosexuality is naturally a minority behaviour in humans. In any case, the opinion develops. Periodical connections between individuals with the same opinion as you, Daniel, connect.

Some citizens of Dystopia soon also develop the opinion that some of the founding principles of the nation are not correct. This is not farfetched - slavery was once the dominant paradigm throughout the western world in years past. People like you Daniel, the simple citizen with his opinion that he kept mostly quiet, begin to mutate. Some of you will remain the same and urge for the state to remain impartial to the personal lives of its citizens. Others, unlike you, will support legislation. As humans, so many of us are programmed to desire our views to be in the spotlight. One by one people who want to ban public homosexuality amass in to groups and, eventually, it is quite possible that Dystopian citizens like this enter the political arena of the nation and begin to make change to suit their beliefs.

While it is not totally likely that there will be enough support to change the founding values of Dystopia, there is a change that is large enough to be considered a risk. A small group of determined radicals has just as much power as a huge group of special snowflakes who have no interest in change. Perhaps in this case people who have grown to support legislation against public homosexuality and the children of these citizens who inherited their parents' views get strong enough to pass the legislation they desire. Just like that, my friend, homosexuals like me no longer live in the Dystopia I grew up in. I am no longer allowed to embrace my husband in public, view anything but heteronormative publications in the media and news and admit and act like my true self in a public spectrum. My most important rights have been stripped away.

Daniel, go back to the start. Who did this start with? It started with a person - perhaps you, perhaps not - who had a toxic opinion. I beg you to rethink your position before people like me are forced backwards on to the dead bodies of activists who have fought for my rights over the past fifty years. I don't want to live a secret life. Please think of us.

[FlyingJesus]

No 'we' are not referring to the Conservative Party with the capital C, I don 't believe its come up actually. The morality argument is an entirely different argument that I have tried to steer away from as you come from the left on the issue whereas I come from the conservative side on the issue which supports the notion of Christian morality which has been present on these islands for thousands of years and is something myself and conservatives wish to preserve. We agree on the state issue and how to go about this, we differ on the personal issues - but i'm not wanting to go into them here in-depth because they are entirely different subjects.

I am not arguing for morality to be legislated on although I will argue in favour of what I view as morality should you wish to do so at any time.

I'm not coming from the left at all, not everything loosely associated with Marx is a leftist policy. Separation of church and state is something Marx wanted, but it doesn't mean that everyone who agrees is a Marxist in the same way that having hair doesn't make me a lion. As for arguing morality, that really is a fruitless task, hence why it shouldn't be state-sanctioned (which we agree on) or forced upon people (which seemingly you don't agree with).

Then you again show you don't understand a libertarian society, you are now bringing anarchy into the topic which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. I understand the point about the gun being used to pressure people, and thats exactly why i'm a libertarian with conservative personal opinions and not an anarchist.

I'm not talking about anarchism (although technically anarchism is a branch of libertarianism and therefore certainly part of the subject at hand), I'm talking about how you absolutely cannot claim to be a libertarian if you think coercion and pressure are good tools for "winning" points. That's the ONE THING that a libertarian government is supposed to protect from. You're allowed your personal opinions, I do not deny this. You are not, however, allowed to suggest shaming, bullying, and pressuring as tools to force other people to agree with you if you wish to call yourself a libertarian. That is entirely analogous to someone wearing a badge saying "vegetarian" while they eat a plate of bacon.

In a libertarian world, your views are your views. They affect you. They do NOT affect other people and theirs do NOT affect you. If this isn't the case, it's not libertarianism.

[Cerys]

I have no idea what's going on in the above posts, but I'm just going to say something I'd change in my history:

Definitely coming on habbo in 08. Its taken so much of my life away and whenever I quit I end up missing people and coming back on

[peteyt]

love how my post have been hijacked ha

[beth]

totes selfish but i would go back to being 11 and do everything differently.

[Inseriousity.]

I don't know, it's hard to see what you'd change because the mistakes of the past mean they can be prevented in the future. The holocaust, for example, is horrible piece of human history that I wish didn't happen but anti-semitism was a common thing at the time and after ww2 it became taboo to believe in fascism and their ideologies (hooray!) so yeah it's tough. On a personal level, I wish I wasn't such a selfish brat as a kid but again that's shaped me into the try-to-be-considerate-as-much-as-possible person I am today!

[MKR&*42]

Probably breaking up with one of my exes a few years ago. I'm not a huge fan of romance, but I would love to see how it would have turned out if I hadn't ended it.

[geo]

Not entirely sure I'd change anything (like the big, big happenings in the world) because what if they didn't happen, what would have happened instead? It could have been far worse.

Um, if I could go back though I'd change the secondary school I went to. I don't feel like I belong and I don't think the teaching standards are great either, haha.

[dbgtz]

@the whole debate above on homosexuality etc. I think the most annoying part of this debate is that people keep complaining about homosexual rights etc (this includes feminism, race and stuff like that aswell) but there seriously is nothing to complain about anymore and some people just seem to stir up crap. And on the whole marriage point of homosexuality, is there any real need? Civil partnerships already exist and marriage is just thrown around by most people nowadays anyway so it's basically worthless.

Anyway on the original thread, I'd quite like to see what would happen if the American Revolution failed.

[peteyt]

@the whole debate above on homosexuality etc. I think the most annoying part of this debate is that people keep complaining about homosexual rights etc (this includes feminism, race and stuff like that aswell) but there seriously is nothing to complain about anymore and some people just seem to stir up crap. And on the whole marriage point of homosexuality, is there any real need? Civil partnerships already exist and marriage is just thrown around by most people nowadays anyway so it's basically worthless.

Anyway on the original thread, I'd quite like to see what would happen if the American Revolution failed.

Interesting you said that. A friend of mine who is gay said quite a few years ago he wasn't that keen on all the gay movements as he thought they where asking for extra rights over everyone else