quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I'm not BlackBlade.
I expressed my belief that using an unelected and unaccountable branch of government to impose a right that is recognized by a small minority onto the remaining majority of a population is fascist.
This isn't true on its face, or in the details. The judiciary DOES have checks on it (they can be impeached).
quote:I guess I'm just not used to Hatrackian debates. It seems there's an underlying sense of respect here, and sadly, that's so foreign to me that I react much more strongly then I should. *sighs* Two days and I've already made myself look and sound like an asshole. Terrific.
*gently
I think it will be okay. You seem quite authentic, and friends can deal with authentic emotions. It would be posturing that is hard to maintain a friendship through. [not necessarily this]
So, Hitoshi, you've been around for over a year? Have I just had my head in the sand, or have I been away while you've been posting?
Thanks for being kind. It's very nice of ya, and I appreciate it.
Yeah, I've been around for a year or so, but I was mostly a lurker and only popped my head in on occasion. But topics like this made me wanna start debating, so I went ahead and started.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: CT, at least 50 of his 72 posts are from the past month. I think what we have here is a Former Lurker. Welcome to full-fledged posting status, Hitoshi.
Don't worry. Lots of us make strong impressions when we first start to post. I know I came in with both guns blazing. Just take a deep breath, relax a little, and get used to the ambiance.
Thanks.
I think I've made my strong impression then. I'll cool my jets a bit and try again then.
quote:Seriously, what is considered irresponsible judicial activism by one group is very easily considered an absolutely necessary defense of Constitutional rights by another group. The latter group isn't seeking, by and large, to "impose their will;" they're seeking to defend themselves from the majority. That the majority also feels under attack -- or at least counter-attacked -- is the root of this confusion.
I have to agree with Tom here. It's not so much about people trying to "impose their will" as it is fighting to defend their rights from what they see is an unfair measure meant only to oppress, i.e. the Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Now stop and consider this for a moment: what good comes from marginalizing, alienating, and hurting an already discriminated against minority? How is this any better than countries that fine their citizens for having homosexual intercourse? If we go by popular slippery-slope arguments and instead apply them to banning gay marriage, what's to prevent the re-instituting of sodomy laws? Making queer-bashing legal? Practicing eugenics and sterilization on gays?
Look at this way: South Africa, a country that was terribly "behind the times" in racial and social rights, has just legalized gay unions without forcing churches to perform ceremonies. We're now behind a country that had apartheid until the 80s and 90s.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT: Oh I thought it was worth answering, my statement was actually a question as I'd love to know other's opinions on the matter.
I don't know why I felt impelled to answer a question directed to Resh, in retrospect I'm kinda embarrassed TBH.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: CT: Oh I thought it was worth answering, my statement was actually a question as I'd love to know other's opinions on the matter.
I don't know why I felt impelled to answer a question directed to Resh, in retrospect I'm kinda embarrassed TBH.
No, no, that's fine. I'm just used to people making some sort of comment if they are answering a question addressed to another person (such as, "Well, I'm not so-and-so, but ..." or "I know you were asking so-and-so, but I thought I'd chime in with ...") No biggie. Just curious.
It isn't mandatory to add a disclaimer at the beginning -- the lack of it was merely unexpected. Thanks for the clarification. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, the major difference is at the end of my post. I didn't really explain it very well, though.
I remember a stand-up comedienne talking about how some relative of hers would say the most horrible things about people but would finish by saying "Bless his heart," and so it was ok. Anyway, same principle here, and you do this a lot, Tom.
quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson: You could have said "is not!" and stomped your foot and sounded more mature.
I'm blowing this out of proportion by comparing it to "you know he was such a bad alcoholic, that's why he beats his wife and kids, bless his heart," but that little smiley face doesn't make me think that you were joking.
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I'm not BlackBlade.
I expressed my belief that using an unelected and unaccountable branch of government to impose a right that is recognized by a small minority onto the remaining majority of a population is fascist.
This isn't true on its face, or in the details. The judiciary DOES have checks on it (they can be impeached).
-Bok
Yeah, sure, and that happens often enough to convince the population that our judges are held to any sort of account. Have you read some of the reasoning by some of our highest judges? The majority opinion during Roe v. Wade invoked "the mystery of life" as part of it's reasoning. What a joke. These liberal activist judges should be laughed out of town, but the fawning media just heaps the praise on liberals for being so brave. Well, it is a brave new world we're being introduced to, so maybe it is accurate. What will tomorrow hold for us? Oh, I can't wait. "You got to admit, it's getting better... getting better all the time."
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What did I mean by that last thing I said, anyway? Civilization reached it's peak during World War 2, because that was the last time true evil reached such a level of power, and the rest of the world was able to stand up to it and make the sacrifices required to defeat it. It's happening again, and we will not persevere this time.
The bastion of rightousness in this world (that's us) has no moral backbone anymore. Look at our children's role models. Our Teen USA and Miss USA are making out with each other in nightclubs and having orgies back at their apartments. Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, God help us. Gangtas and drug addicts are the heroes. College students getting class credit for egging the hearse of a fallen soldier. Sedition and treason is not punished. Abortiing babies. "But the woman's right!" IT'S A BABY!!! Murderers. And we stand by and let it happen. Even actively support it. Evil.
Homosexuality is not a cause, it is a symptom. Moral relativism is the cause. We have no moral compass anymore, because the forces of secularization are outlawing the source of the values from which the greatness of this country was founded. The Bible and our judeo-christian values were our strength, and secularism is a cancer that is destroying us. Your gonna win this Tom, and the rest of you "progressive" types. Your rhetoric is great. And mark my words, the spoils of war you win will be a destroyed nation, economic collapse, and the option of accepting Allah as your God and Muhommed is his prophet, or a sword through your neck.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: CT, the major difference is at the end of my post. I didn't really explain it very well, though.
Where? What reason? I know this must be quite irritating to you, but I honestly am not trying to be obtuse. And it is, I think, an important point.
Here is what I read:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: There are parallels between homosexual marriage today and the civil rights movement of the 60's. But there is a major difference that I will address at the end of this.
(that was the introduction)
quote:I would also like to say that I never expressed my opinion about the rightness or wrongness of homosexual marriage. I expressed my belief that using an unelected and unaccountable branch of government to impose a right that is recognized by a small minority onto the remaining majority of a population is fascist. If homosexuals want to legalize gay marriage, maybe they should use the constitutionally explicit right to free speech to convince the rest of us that this is a law that should be passed by the elected legislature, rather than invoking some fabricatedrights that the framers of the constitution surrepititiously included in the text, only to be discovered by our more enlightened judges of today. Simliar to the "right to privacy" that allows a woman to kill her unborn child. That was what Madison meant when he said soldiers are not to be quartered in private homes, you know.
(that was an aside, where you advanced the (side) argument that homosexuals should try to convince others by talking, not by enforcement through law)
quote:I say this because smart and honest people are on both sides of this issue. Same goes for abortion and intelligent design. Segregation laws, abolishment, womens sufferage; not so much. Those are examples of where judicial action was right and effective.
(here you state that the gay marriage/civil union movement is different from women's sufferage, abolition, and the anti-segregation movement, but the claim that they are different isn't the same as explaining how or why they are different)
I just don't see it. Can you maybe restate the reason why again, in just a sentence for me?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just said that there is a major difference, that smart and honest people are on both sides of the homosexual marriage issue, and therefore it should be a matter for the legislature to decide. Smart and honest people were only on one side of the segregation issue, and so it was good that it wasn't left up to the legislature in that case.
Of course, this is a pretty weak argument I am making here. Pretty subjective; really more a statement of opinion. So don't try and engage me on this point, because I will abandon it in a formal argument.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Then how are we the bastion of righteousness?
We were. Not anymore. We are unable to fight the good fight. To many sissy pacifists who will only stand up to people that wont fight back.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
The civil rights movement WAS decided in the legislature. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 64, I think. That was the one where the *ahem* Democrats filibustered.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So there were NO smart and honest people on the other side of segregation, sufferage or slavery? None at ALL?
That's not to say I think those people were right, but I think the people who are against equal rights for gay people are just as wrong.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did say that this was more a matter of opinion on my part. No, I don't think anyone could be both smart and honest and still support segregation laws.
[edit: to clarify] Supporters of segregation and slavery were either bad or stupid people. Womens sufferage, maybe not. I disagree, but I can see how someone could honestly believe that giving women the right to vote would have been bad for the nation. They don't have to fight our wars, for instance.
But if you think that people who are against equal rights for homosexuals are wrong, you may be right. But making the claim that homosexuality is morally equivilent to heterosexuality, while not neccessarily untrue, is not a given. Smart and honest people can argue the point.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many of them pulled biblical justification just as people are using biblical justification against gay people today.
Do you really think the pro-segregation people were dumber and less honest than the anti-gay people are today?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I did say that this was more a matter of opinion on my part. No, I don't think anyone could be both smart and honest and still support segregation laws.
Hmmm. Nobody who thought women would not benefit from the right to vote was "smart and honest?" Really? Nobody was acting in good faith?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
FYI, people were drug addicts long, long before World War II. It's just that a lot of substances weren't yet involved in legislation and were very, very, very, very widely used.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Many of them pulled biblical justification just as people are using biblical justification against gay people today.
Do you really think the pro-segregation people were dumber and less honest than the anti-gay people are today?
Dumber or less honest, yes.
Let me say something. This is my opinion, and I said as much. But this is what people want to debate me on. I even said it wouldn't hold up as a formal argument. So why latch on to that?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: FYI, people were drug addicts long, long before World War II. It's just that a lot of substances weren't yet involved in legislation and were very, very, very, very widely used.
Never said they weren't. But it wasn't glorified. Neither was being a criminal, or a whore.
And I don't know if drugs were very, very, very, very widely used. Maybe just very, very. But even then, I don't think so. Where do you get that idea?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: FYI, people were drug addicts long, long before World War II. It's just that a lot of substances weren't yet involved in legislation and were very, very, very, very widely used.
Never said they weren't. But it wasn't glorified. Neither was being a criminal, or a whore.
It wasn't glorified? So it's okay that people used to give morphine to their infants to keep them quiet because...it wasn't "glorified?" That's a better situation? It was sold to people as a miracle tonic!
I've got to say, I'm a little afraid of your version of the world.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Ehh, I don't know what you're talking about, to be honest.
Morphine was sold as a cure-all to people before there was legislation to regulate such things. Women especially were addicted to it. Opiate use was very, very widespread, and often women would give opiates to their young children to keep them quiet. Thus, many children grew up addicted to opiates.
I really don't understand this whole "age of lead" attitude that people seem to take. The world's not exactly plummeting downhill. Things are just different. Like opiates are controlled substances.
posted
Resh: So you can honestly and intellgently be against equal rights for one set of people (cuz, ya know, they're DIRTY) and you can't be honestly and intellegently be against another set of people?
I'm latching on to this because I'm insulted.
The whole idea that equal rights are something we should be *debating* is insulting. We're just as much people as the rest of you lot and we deserve the same damn rights as you.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: And what are you afraid of? My version of the world where people weren't sold morphine as a miracle tonic and gave it to their babies?
Are you high?
...I'm afraid of your idea that the world was improving up until the Second World War, after which time it went on a severe decline.
Oh yeah, I'm high, like, all the time, man. Pass me those Funyuns.
posted
No, I think she means your version of the world being better at a time in which people gave opiates to their infants, as opposed to the current situation being the fall of civilization.
Jeez, fifty years ago it was legal to rape and beat your wife. Ah, the good old days.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Resh: So you can honestly and intellgently be against equal rights for one set of people (cuz, ya know, they're DIRTY) and you can't be honestly and intellegently be against another set of people?
I'm latching on to this because I'm insulted.
The whole idea that equal rights are something we should be *debating* is insulting. We're just as much people as the rest of you lot and we deserve the same damn rights as you.
Look, I never said that I thinkk homosexuals should be discriminated against. You're are assuming that because I'm against homosexual marriage that I'm for discrimination. Marriage is between a man and a woman. You want to change that. As far as I'm concerned, you may as well be making the argument that marriage can be between a man and a fish, or a man and his sister. That's not what marriage is. It probably will be one day, but that doesn't make it right. I'm sorry if you are insulted, but I'm pissed off about what has happened to this country.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Well, I rescinded that, Claudia. About womens suffrage.
Fair enough. Sorry I missed that.
So, what's the difference between gay marriage/civil unions via the courts and women's sufferage via the courts, again?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH, and Olivet... I don't think you guys are idiots. But don't make up stuff. "Jeez, fifty years ago it was legal to rape and beat your wife. Ah, the good old days." That is the most ridiculous and tired straw man argument ever. Get in the game.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Well, I rescinded that, Claudia. About womens suffrage.
Fair enough. Sorry I missed that.
So, what's the difference between gay marriage/civil unions via the courts and women's sufferage via the courts, again?
You didn't miss it, I think I added it in an edit.
The difference is something I woke up to and realized while I was writing, and that is the fact that womens suffrage and civil rights were acts passed by the legislature. I don't know what I was talking about prior, so if you would, please ignore.
[edit:] Suffrage was an amendment, not an act.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh: We are not into beatiality or incest. We fall in love just like you people do. We want the same rights and obligations.
All you're doing is stacking insult upon insult.
Giving us the same rights as you won't hurt you one whit. All it will do is strengthen our families, because that's what marriage does. Brings stability and strength to a relationship.
Denying us equal rights *is* discrimination. That's like saying "I don't got nuttin' against them there black folks, I just don't want 'em votin'! *spit*"
"What's happened to this country"... Are hordes of locusts consuming children out of their cribs because gays are getting married in Massachusettes? What could you possibly be thinking?
Do you even read what you say?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: pH, and Olivet... I don't think you guys are idiots. But don't make up stuff. "Jeez, fifty years ago it was legal to rape and beat your wife. Ah, the good old days." That is the most ridiculous and tired straw man argument ever. Get in the game.
So we've made up that these things happened? Seriously?
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Well, I rescinded that, Claudia. About womens suffrage.
Fair enough. Sorry I missed that.
So, what's the difference between gay marriage/civil unions via the courts and women's sufferage via the courts, again?
You didn't miss it, I think I added it in an edit.
The difference is something I woke up to and realized while I was writing, and that is the fact that womens sufferage and civil rights were acts passed by the legislature. I don't know what I was talking about prior, so if you would, please ignore.
I will certainly drop the point, especially given your polite request. I do think it is an important issue, though, and that the lack of a clearly-defined delineation there is something which it might be worth dwelling on, privately, to see how this realization might best inform one's opinions.
Enough for that. Carry on.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously, men were not prosecuted for rape of their wives, and beatings were referred to in popular culture as "home correction".
I dare you to tell my grandmother she was making it up, when less than ten years ago they started putting noticies on marriage licenses in Virginia stating that it is illegal to beat or rape your wife. I worked in government offices at the time, and I know why they felt the need to do it. The very first case where rape charges were brought against a spouse was in the sixties, I think. I'll look it up. It was considered outrageous at the time.
It's not a straw man, it's history.It's very easy, though, to idealize a distant past which you were not around to experience first hand.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: pH, and Olivet... I don't think you guys are idiots. But don't make up stuff. "Jeez, fifty years ago it was legal to rape and beat your wife. Ah, the good old days." That is the most ridiculous and tired straw man argument ever. Get in the game.
You do realise that it actually was legal to force your wife to have sex with you, yes? That is, she had no legal right to tell you no. That's rape in my book. And while beating her may not, strictly speaking, have been legal (for that, you'd need to go back more than 50 years, I think), the law sure as hell wasn't enforced if a man should happen to give his wife a black eye or two.
- What do you say to a woman with two black eyes? - Nuthin'. You already told her twice.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest: In all honesty if we suddenly had a plague of locusts and you had Christians screaming about gay marriage being the cause of it, I think we would all look at them like they were crazy.
Though a slightly facetious question, what would be the appropriate plague/punishment for God to show his displeasure towards homosexuality?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Pixiest, you don't know the arguments against homosexual marriage. I know this because you are projecting hate and idiocy on me and others who feel the way I do. I'm not a hateful person. But I know why you think I must be, because what other reason could there be for me to believe you should be denied what you feel is your right. Rather than demonizing your opponents, you should try to understand them. It probably won't make you change your mind, but it will help foster a more productive debate.
And please ignore what I said about abortionists and their supporters being murderers. That was a moment of anger.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kink of Men, Olivet, it is a straw man. I should just ask you both to go look up what a straw man argument is, but I'll just tell you what you are doing. I made an argument about moral decline since a certain time, and you point out bad things from back then that I can't argue against. Therefore, my whole argument is defeated. That's the theory anyway. But what it is is a straw man argument. Here's an example:
"Robert Bork would see the return of segregated lunch counters and back-alley abortions." -Ted Kennedy
These tactics you are using work. That argument prevented Bork's nomination, even though it was patently false. If that's how you want to win, proceed at your own peril.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Though a slightly facetious question, what would be the appropriate plague/punishment for God to show his displeasure towards homosexuality?
Actual negative effects from gay marriage? Not being two of the states in the country with the lowest rates of divorce?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh: Ya, I've never heard the arguments against gay marriage before. What am I thinking?
I really doubt you can pull one out I've never heard. I've tried understanding the lot of you and you all boil down to "But it's icky" or some article of faith that not everyone follows (but hey! let's write some more religion into law! **** the constitution!)
And I'm angry because I'm really tired of debating this all the freaking time and I'm sick to death of my people being second class citizens.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, stupid-head. I was unwilling to admit that I was wrong about something I never even said. Now go away, the grown-ups are talking.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Pixiest, I'm sorry you feel that way. I would like that you could be happy. I will say that my arguments are rooted in faith, but they are not because I think homosexual sex is icky. I think gay sex is, but lesbian sex is kinda hot. No, it's about the big picture. This country was the most powerful and most good in all of history ---despite it's flaws--- but that is all changing now. That is the basis of my belief. Homosexuality is perhaps not inherently wrong, but it is a part of a landscape of change that is a symptom of our abandonmnet of god and our embrace of humanism.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Pixiest, maybe we could just cut and paste from old threads?
Reshpeckobiggle, maybe check out some of the older threads and get caught up, huh?
I know, it's been beaten to death. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that no ones mind was changed.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. It was 1976 when Nebraska became the first state to abolish the marital exemption for rape.
1976. And that was the FIRST state to do it. Though I suppose a man being exempt from prosecution for raping his wife could be argued to different, in some semantic way, from it actually being legal to do so, I'd have to say there is little effective difference.
This is merely presented as proof that the Western world has not necessarily been spiralling into collapse since WWII. We didn't nuke Japan from a high ground quite as lofty as you seem to assume.
This is in response to what you said.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Welcome to full-fledged posting status, Hitoshi. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
I'll cool my jets a bit and try again then.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I know this must be quite irritating to you, but I honestly am not trying to be obtuse. And it is, I think, an important point.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
