Home | Community | Message Board


Lil Shop Of Spores
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinewingnutx
Registered: 09/25/00
Posts: 2,268
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
The State of Our Unions
    #1990605 - 10/08/03 06:12 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

The State of Our Unions
If it's not a crime to be gay, why can't we get married?

BY ANDREW SULLIVAN
Wednesday, October 8, 2003 12:01 a.m.

It didn't take long for many social conservatives to ponder the long-term implications of the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down all antisodomy laws in the U.S. Moves are afoot to advance a constitutional amendment that would bar any state's legalization of same-sex marriage; next week is "Marriage Protection Week," in which the alleged danger of Lawrence v. Texas will be highlighted across the country. This push toward blanket prohibition, however, sidesteps a basic point about the post-Lawrence world. Whatever you feel about the reasoning of the decision, its result is clear: Gay Americans are no longer criminals. And very few conservatives want to keep them that way. The term "gay citizen" is now simply a fact of life.

In retrospect, this might be the most significant shift on the question of homosexuality in a generation. For if homosexuals are no longer criminals for having consensual private relationships, then they cannot be dismissed as somehow alien or peripheral to our civil society. Moreover, the social transformation of the last decade cannot simply be gainsaid: A poll this week for USA Today found that 67% of the 18-29 age group believe that gay marriage would benefit society. The public as a whole is evenly split on that issue. Many of the people favoring a new tolerance are Republicans and conservatives. And this is inevitable. When the daughter of the vice president is openly gay, it's hard to treat homosexual citizens as some permanent kind of Other, as a threat to civil order and society.

But if conservatives have now endorsed the notion of homosexuals as citizens, they haven't yet fully grasped the implications of that shift. Previously, social policy toward homosexuals was a function of either criminalization or avoidance. People who are either in jail or potentially subject to criminal sanction are already subject to a social policy of a sort. You may disagree with it, but it's social policy on the same lines as that toward drug users or speeders. It's a form of prohibitionism. But when all illegality is removed from gay people, as it has been, that social policy surely has to change.

So what is it? What exactly is the post-Lawrence conservative social policy toward homosexuals? Amazingly, the current answer is entirely a negative one. The majority of social conservatives oppose gay marriage; they oppose gay citizens serving their country in the military; they oppose gay citizens raising children; they oppose protecting gay citizens from workplace discrimination; they oppose including gays in hate-crime legislation, while including every other victimized group; they oppose civil unions; they oppose domestic partnerships; they oppose . . . well, they oppose, for the most part, every single practical measure that brings gay citizens into the mainstream of American life.

This is simply bizarre. Can you think of any other legal, noncriminal minority in society toward which social conservatives have nothing but a negative social policy? What other group in society do conservatives believe should be kept outside integrating social institutions? On what other issue do conservatives favor separatism over integration? We know, in short, what conservatives are against in this matter. But what exactly are they for?





Let me be practical here. If two lesbian women want to share financial responsibility for each other for life, why is it a conservative notion to prevent this? If two men who have lived together for decades want the ability to protect their joint possessions in case one of them dies, why is it a conservative notion that such property be denied the spouse in favor of others? If one member of a young gay couple is badly hurt in a car accident, why is it a conservative notion that his spouse not be allowed to visit him in the intensive-care unit? In all these cases, you have legal citizens trying to take responsibility for one another. By doing so, by setting up relationships that do the "husbanding" work of family, such couples relieve the state of the job of caring for single people without family support. Such couplings help bring emotional calm to the people involved; they educate people into the mundane tasks of social responsibility and mutual caring. When did it become a socially conservative idea that these constructive, humane instincts remain a threat to society as a whole? And how do these small acts of caring actually undermine the heterosexual marriage of the people who live next door?

Some will argue that these and many other benefits and responsibilities can be set up in an ad hoc fashion. You can create powers of attorney, legal contracts and the like, if you really need to. These arrangements can be enormously time-consuming and complex, and they don't always hold up in courts of law, of course. But even if they did, isn't it a strange conservative impulse to make taking responsibility something that the government should make harder rather than easier? One of the key benefits of marriage, after all, is that it also upholds a common ideal of mutual support and caring; it not only enables such acts of responsibility but rewards and celebrates them. In the past you could argue that such measures were inappropriate for a criminal or would-be criminal subgroup. But after Lawrence, that is no longer the case. The question is therefore an insistent one: On what grounds do conservatives believe that discouraging responsibility is a good thing for one group in society? What other legal minority do they or would they treat this way? If a group of African-Americans were to set themselves up and campaign for greater familial responsibility among black couples, do you think conservatives would be greeting them with dismay and discouragement or even a constitutional amendment to stop them?

It is one thing to oppose gay marriage (some, but not all, conservative arguments against it are reasonable, if to my mind unconvincing). But it is another thing to oppose any arrangement that might give greater security, responsibility and opportunity to gay couples. At times, the social conservative position is almost perversely inconsistent: Many oppose what they see as gay promiscuity; but even more strongly, they oppose any social measures that would encourage gay monogamy, such as marriage. What, one wonders, do they want? In this, they actually have lower standards for now-legal citizens than they do for incarcerated criminals: Even murderers on death row have the constitutional right to marry, where the institution could do no conceivable social good. But for millions of citizens currently excluded from such incentives for responsibility, conservatives are prepared even to amend the Constitution to say no.

If this debate is to move forward, a few simple questions therefore have to be answered: What is the social conservative position on civil unions? What aspects of them can conservatives get behind? What details are they less convinced by? These are basic public policy questions to which social conservatives, for the most part, have yet to provide an answer. It's well past time they did.

Mr. Sullivan, a senior editor of The New Republic and columnist for Time, writes daily for andrewsullivan.com. This is part of an occasional series.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/ac/?id=110004130


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: The State of Our Unions [Re: wingnutx]
    #1990689 - 10/08/03 06:38 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

I've been discussing this with some friends (not recommended) and it seems like their best arguments against gay marriage are either semantic--"marriage" is strictly defined--or based on terms like "indecent", "unnatural", or "immoral". They quote Aquinas as if these subjective terms have more weight coming from him. In other words, it's hard to imagine a more clear-cut case where there really isn't a solid argument to offer.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: The State of Our Unions [Re: hongomon]
    #1990760 - 10/08/03 07:09 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

the way i see it, the only concern the government should have with marriage is its legal significance.

the only aspect of "marriage" the government should be at all concerned with is that it is a legal union between two individuals that affects things like kinship ties, property, and the like.

there is no legal reason why a man and another man, or two women should not be able to form this sort of legal union. to extend special status to some unions and not to others based on the sexes of the individuals involved is simply unconstitutional.

and what the hell is going on in this country when certain politicians are pushing for a constitutional amendment to tag a limiting definion on something that is largely a religious rite?

it's largely a matter of culture and religion, with a little legal significance. it is the legal part the government should be concerned with; it has no business sticking its nose into the cultural and religious aspects.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: The State of Our Unions [Re: ]
    #1990788 - 10/08/03 07:16 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

i guess what i'm saying is that what it really comes down to is the government extending special legal status to some people and not to others based on their gender. the fact that christianity is driving them sure doesn't make it any better.

it'd be like if the government refused to recognize multiracial marriages.

(that's a good article too btw)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: The State of Our Unions [Re: ]
    #1990834 - 10/08/03 07:30 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

and what the hell is going on in this country when certain politicians are pushing for a constitutional amendment to tag a limiting definion on something that is largely a religious rite?



Exactly. It seems to me that the whole idea of outlawing gay marriage goes against the free exercise clause of the first ammendment. The government legally recognizes a religious institution which binds two people of different genders into a union, but if a church performs the same ritual for two people of the same gender, it is not legally recognized.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: The State of Our Unions [Re: silversoul7]
    #1990883 - 10/08/03 07:46 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

i also think that it's bullshit how it's actually legal in this country to use psychedelics for spiritual purposes...

but only if you're a native american and a member of the right tribe, belong to a certain legally-recognized church, and use the prescribed species of cactus.

no law respecting an establishment of religion?

equal protection under the law?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: The State of Our Unions [Re: ]
    #1990894 - 10/08/03 07:48 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

The very least the federal government could do is leave it to states to decide. Haven't some states gone ahead with policies of their own only to be extorted by the feds? Or am I crossing this with medical marijuana.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsiloKitten
Ganja Goddess

Registered: 02/13/99
Posts: 1,617
Re: The State of Our Unions [Re: wingnutx]
    #1990941 - 10/08/03 08:08 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Okay,  I will avoid the Polly Anna syndrome that this thread seems to be falling into.

This country is a Democracy.  Period.  Now, I personally believe that the public would not vote to legalize Gay marriaiges en masse.. Maybe some state with a large gay population should make it a ballot initiative.  It is the first step in the process.  Black people fought for Civil Rights for years, this PC culture is dead enough already, must it be impatient too?

I mean, Im frankly tired of the dramatic posturing.  You can't make the public accept you.. no matter how many Queer Eye for the Straight Guy epidoses you run.  Im not saying you shouldnt be accepted as a gay person... just that there is still some stigma there.  Unfortunately it is going to have to be fixed.  There arent any magic wands in the warehouse.

We have all molded and conformed into the most spineless and Politically Correct people.  I still strongly believe that the state system was instituted for a reason.  You could enact change locally and then maybe the wave would crest nationally.  The manipulated emotion of this topic just annoys me.

Let me share a story.  Im by no means some feminist Nazi, Im all for women's rights but in the same token, I prioritize rights a bit differently.  In anycase, Im watching television.. aimlessly clicking through the channels, when I notice that today's television shows totally emasculate men.

It's amazing really.  Everyone is either this warm fuzzy sensitive guy.. or comedic loser..  or some asshole emotional cripple.  Im not saying it is related to the gay movement or anything.. Im not wearing my tinfoil hat today.  I just want to see more Rex Butler and less of Will or Grace for that matter :smile:

I mean, look at John Ritter.  He went from Menage de Trois to being a water retaining Dad.  It's depressing. 

This was just a rant.  Im stoned and bored.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinewingnutx
Registered: 09/25/00
Posts: 2,268
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: The State of Our Unions [Re: hongomon]
    #1990978 - 10/08/03 08:27 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

The "Defense of Marriage Act" basically keeps the feds out of it, and says that states do not have to recognize each others' marriage laws.

That may or may not be struck down by the SCOTUS, though.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinewingnutx
Registered: 09/25/00
Posts: 2,268
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: The State of Our Unions [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #1990983 - 10/08/03 08:29 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

That was a pretty good rant. I agree, too.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: The State of Our Unions [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #1991024 - 10/08/03 08:44 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

There's a lot of democratic basis in our system, but it's not a pure democracy, where the majority vote decides everything. We're a constitutionally limited democracy, or a constitutional republic, or some like term.

And the fact that minorities are protected from the will of the majority is pretty much what this issue boils down to, not moral acceptance, certainly not approval. I get the impression that's what a lot of the opposition to legal gay unions fears--that acknowledging equal civil rights for homosexual couples will translate to approval. Same thing goes for drug prohibition and sex education. Definitely not a simple factor in the issues, the "message" factor.

And I'm sure you know that a lot of heteros support gay marriage (or unions, or whatever they're called)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,740
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: The State of Our Unions [Re: hongomon]
    #1991034 - 10/08/03 08:46 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Close, it's a constitutionally limited republic.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: The State of Our Unions [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #1991126 - 10/08/03 09:21 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

This country is a Democracy. Period.

no, we are a constitutionally-limited republic. the framers understood very well that democracy wasn't always a good thing, and so created a system in which the will of the majority would not run rampant over individual rights.

unfortunately, as i'm sure you're well-aware, it doesn't always work this way. democracy is more powerful in this nation than it was ever intended to be and it often does tread on individual freedom.

laws against homosexuality and drug use are perfect examples of this.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsiloKitten
Ganja Goddess

Registered: 02/13/99
Posts: 1,617
Re: The State of Our Unions [Re: hongomon]
    #1992277 - 10/09/03 05:17 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Okay, well most folks live under the utopian dream that we really do live in a Democracy. It is what we were all taught to wax patriotic about.. the reason we said pledge of allegiance every morning in school.

You people like to argue semantics too much.

My point isnt that straight people dont support it. I do contend that most people dont support it. I could be wrong.. and like I said, why not try your hand in California and see what they say? Then, let's get all crazy and imagine it goes national. Let's add all those deep south and midwest people who actually get their asses up and vote. They arent lazy and trapped at desks like us. They are asserting their american promise. Then let's add in the rest of the responsible all american folk who arent so disillusioned that they actually get out there and vote. Well, if you can look at reality and tell me the US Public as a whole wants to accept men kissing on tv shows as the norm and women who dont look like Anne Heche or date Anne Heche.. Well, Ive got some property to sell you. Dont worry about it being in a flood plain.

Do you think civil rights are real for black americans? What about the guys getting rounded up and held in guantanamo bay? You think they are being persecuted as badly as not acknowledging gay marriage rights? Women are so liberated, right? They get to shake their ass and show their tits in every avenue of media, from music to magazine.

What Im saying is that it is a struggle, a work in progress. Maybe people are worried that it will translate to approval. I mean, ye gads.. last time I checked Americans were predominantly hetrosexual and over 90% of those polled at one time or another (I have the stat somewhere, but Im not getting it.. so if Im wrong, sue me) claimed to be Christian. That's it folks. Deal with our nation. Stop creating this virtual utopia of civil rights and rainbow colored children. Did you know that they drug a black man down the street for being black in GA? I mean, fuck.. the civilrights movement started almost 50 years ago. Probably even before then.. shit, let's go back to slavery.

Why is every liberal or politically correct person shuffled into this syndrome where everyone is a down trodden cause of the week? Homosexuals cant get married.. Oh me, oh my.. they have only struck down sodomy laws in one of the most backwards religious states in the country.. definately the biggest one. But we must have more! Right NOW! *Snaps fingers impatiently*

Everyone is so damn entitled but they dont give a fuck about what that entitlement requires of them.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,740
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: The State of Our Unions [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #1992292 - 10/09/03 05:28 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Why is every liberal or politically correct person shuffled into this syndrome where everyone is a down trodden cause of the week?



Amen! ( a completely atheist amen that is)


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 3 days
Re: The State of Our Unions [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1992323 - 10/09/03 06:09 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Shazbat!


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: The State of Our Unions [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #1993045 - 10/09/03 01:24 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Psilo, are you still stoned?  Cause you're definitely still ranting.... :grin:

Maybe we argue semantics now and then, but I don't think this is one of those times.  The differences between a pure democracy where everything is decided by majority rule and a constitutional republic are big enough to be worth reminding ourselves from time to time.

This paragraph of yours shows at various points that you don't appreciate the distinction:

I do contend that most people dont support it. I could be wrong.. and like I said, why not try your hand in California and see what they say? Then, let's get all crazy and imagine it goes national. Let's add all those deep south and midwest people who actually get their asses up and vote. They arent lazy and trapped at desks like us. They are asserting their american promise. Then let's add in the rest of the responsible all american folk who arent so disillusioned that they actually get out there and vote. Well, if you can look at reality and tell me the US Public as a whole wants to accept men kissing on tv shows as the norm and women who dont look like Anne Heche or date Anne Heche.. Well, Ive got some property to sell you. Dont worry about it being in a flood plain.

Why should all those people have anything to say about two people's private lives?  You know there's a good chance the majority of the country--and undoubtedly in certain parts of the country--would've supported anti-miscegenation laws back in the sixties, when they were deemed unconstitutional.

Your paragraph about blacks, Gauntanamo Bay detainees and women doesn't make much sense, and certainly doesn't apply to the issue.  Why should gay couples continue to be deprived certain rights (read Sullivan's paragraph begining "Let me be practical here.") because liberated women choose to shake their ass and show their tits?

90% say they were Christian "at one time or another"...whatever that means... but who cares if it's true?  I'd be scared of a Christian majority if everything were decided by majority rule.  Can you offer a reasonable argument why gay marriage should be any different legally that inter-racial marriage?  How interfering with one but not the other is unconstitutional?

Your last comment (at least as I think you intend it) I think there's some truth to:

Everyone is so damn entitled by doesnt give a fuck about what that entitlement requires of them.

I've said it before in other ways--we've developed a strong sense of individual freedom but our sense of social responsibility sometimes lags behind. I think that's what Sullivan had in mind when he wrote,

Such couplings help bring emotional calm to the people involved; they educate people into the mundane tasks of social responsibility and mutual caring. When did it become a socially conservative idea that these constructive, humane instincts remain a threat to society as a whole?     


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsiloKitten
Ganja Goddess

Registered: 02/13/99
Posts: 1,617
Re: The State of Our Unions [Re: hongomon]
    #1993695 - 10/09/03 04:20 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Why should all those people have anything to say about two people's private lives?

Why should all these people have the right to criminalize me because I smoke an herb? They shouldnt.. but they do. We live in a society, we cannot live totally apart from it. Hence, by living in this society we must acclimate

.. and by the way, who are you to say what a democracy is or isnt now days? A word is sometimes taken over by the collective consciouness and permutated into a new meaning. I truly believe that we do live in a McWorld, StarAmerica time of democracy. I mean, I understand your point and all.. and you guys can keep fighting for your order as a "Constituationally limited republic"

You know there's a good chance the majority of the country--and undoubtedly in certain parts of the country--would've supported anti-miscegenation laws back in the sixties, when they were deemed unconstitutional.

Yeah, I dont know that. It never happened. You can interject that opinion all you wish tho. But the People of the US sure seem to be saying a different thing. Not everyone lives in the Pacific north west or SoCal.

Your paragraph about blacks, Gauntanamo Bay detainees and women doesn't make much sense, and certainly doesn't apply to the issue. Why should gay couples continue to be deprived certain rights (read Sullivan's paragraph begining "Let me be practical here.") because liberated women choose to shake their ass and show their tits?

Im sorry that it makes no sense to you. It's really not hard to decipher. Look at this article. It's a bunch of dramatic bs. Gay people arent getting dragged down the streets. They arent being prevented from having commitment ceremonies. They are actually tres chic in our media today. Do you think the founding fathers would be clamoring over themselves to write some new legislation? Well, the average white american male hasnt progressed that far from the beginning. Like I said, go ahead and prove it wrong.. lets start with one state though and see what a ballot initiative does. Is that easier to understand? And my reference to blacks and ginto bay detainees was applicable.. as was my discussion of what women's "rights" has gotten them... Think about the paragraph in context to my opinion. It isnt that hard. It is basically boiled up as.. stop yer fucking whining. Be a big boy and work for your fucking rights like everyone has had to do. You arent gauranteed this country "any way you want it" with or without pickles.

90% say they were Christian "at one time or another"...whatever that means... but who cares if it's true? I'd be scared of a Christian majority if everything were decided by majority rule. Can you offer a reasonable argument why gay marriage should be any different legally that inter-racial marriage? How interfering with one but not the other is unconstitutional?
Heh, you live in a Christian nation. Wether you like it or not. I mean, it is simply something you are going to have to deal with. Even in your constitutionally limited republic... the folks in charge, well.. they are all Christians. So, any way you slice it, that is reality.

Why should it be different? Maybe you would like to look up the definition of marriage.. it doesnt say anything about races. But almost all of the definitions I just found do say something about man and wife.. or husband and wife.. (there have been some late breaking sublettered PC revisions) Perhaps a new term to truly represent that union between two same sex persons should be created instead of asking that the history of a word change. It's like.. you are not entitled expansion and inclusion.

I've said it before in other ways--we've developed a strong sense of individual freedom but our sense of social responsibility sometimes lags behind. I think that's what Sullivan had in mind when he wrote,
Such couplings help bring emotional calm to the people involved; they educate people into the mundane tasks of social responsibility and mutual caring. When did it become a socially conservative idea that these constructive, humane instincts remain a threat to society as a whole?


Wow, that is great, Im glad they bring emotional calm to the people involved. That isnt individual at all. That is all encompassing.. that is all of society...They settle down make a little nest and start doing habitat for humanity on the weekends and become upstanding citizens taking on social responsibility .... pbblt.

I think that is a pretty selfish statement in response to:
"Everyone is so damn entitled, but dont give a fuck about what that entitlement requires of them" (I corrected the ridiculous butchering by myself of the english language)

It smacks of the point in the above statement





--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: The State of Our Unions [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #1994108 - 10/09/03 06:07 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Heh, you live in a Christian nation. Wether you like it or not. I mean, it is simply something you are going to have to deal with. Even in your constitutionally limited republic... the folks in charge, well.. they are all Christians. So, any way you slice it, that is reality.



And guess what? Not all Christians are against gay marriage(my grandfather, for example). And many of those Christians in charge(primarily Democrats) like to separate their religious beliefs from their politics because they believe in the separation of church and state.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: The State of Our Unions [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #1994636 - 10/09/03 08:31 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Why should all these people have the right to criminalize me because I smoke an herb? They shouldnt.. but they do.

I agree that they shouldn't. However, I don't think that drugs is quite as clear-cut as the issue of this thread. There are some reasoned arguments against legalizing drugs, they just don't stand up against the obvious consequences of prohibition, something we should have learned 70 years ago.

.. and by the way, who are you to say what a democracy is or isnt now days? A word is sometimes taken over by the collective consciouness and permutated into a new meaning.

I'm not saying what a democracy is or isn't. I'm saying that there are important distinctions within the word. The limitations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the distinctions in our form of democracy that are worth mentioning. Or do you think those are just suggestions, down a rung from majority rulings? Are you defending will of the majority because you don't have any other argument to offer?

Yeah, I dont know that. It never happened.

What never happened? Anti-miscegenation laws sure happened. Opinion polls happened. Here's one reference:

"Public opinion also affected trends in marriage. "In 1958, pollsters found that 96 percent of whites disapproved of marriages between blacks and whites," Kennedy said. link

also from the link: "The tremendous burden of these laws have influenced attitudes about interracial intimacy still around today, but all were invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967, said Kennedy, in the most aptly named case in all of American constitutional history: Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia."

So unless you think the 1967 decision reflected, and stemmed from, a radical change in public opinion, what rationale did lead to the decision?

Do you think the founding fathers would be clamoring over themselves to write some new legislation?

They wouldn't need to. It's not the presence of a law that is needed, it's the absence of a restrictive one. Just like the sodomy laws, just like the anti-miscegenation laws--that was the legislation, it simply had to be thrown out.

And speaking of clamoring, are you aware of the push for a new amendment opposing same-sex unions?

It is basically boiled up as.. stop yer fucking whining. Be a big boy and work for your fucking rights like everyone has had to do.

The discourse, such as Sullivan's essay which I think embarrasses social conservatives on this issue, is "working for one's fucking rights like everyone has had to do." Maybe you can explain to me the difference between fucking whining and working for one's fucking rights.

Maybe you would like to look up the definition of marriage.. it doesnt say anything about races. But almost all of the definitions I just found do say something about man and wife.. or husband and wife.. (there have been some late breaking sublettered PC revisions) Perhaps a new term to truly represent that union between two same sex persons should be created instead of asking that the history of a word change.

You people sure like to argue semantics. What was all that collective consciousness permutation stuff at the start of your post? But really, I think if it seriously does come do word purity, gays would be foolish not to compromise. A lot of them are for it--terms like civil unions are out there now. They still face the same resistance to being lawfully recognized. Sullivan is asking why.

I think that is a pretty selfish statement in response to:
"Everyone is so damn entitled, but dont give a fuck about what that entitlement requires of them" (I corrected the ridiculous butchering by myself of the english language)

It smacks of the point in the above statement


wtf??? I thought we are all on pretty much the same page there! What was selfish about it? I know I take social responsibility seriously, Sullivan, from what I've read of him, seems about as level-headed a social conscience as they come, so who's not giving a fuck about what their entitlement requires of them??


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage
( 1 2 all )
Ferris 2,379 23 10/11/08 11:34 PM
by johnm214
* State of the Union address 1992 - hypocrisy/dishonesty 2004 Xochitl 718 7 04/30/04 01:00 AM
by silversoul7
* ACLU Seeks Mandatory Homosexual Sensitivity Training
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
lonestar2004 5,145 100 07/24/05 01:05 AM
by JesusChrist
* North American Super-State?
( 1 2 all )
Psilocybeingzz 2,913 21 06/25/07 07:02 PM
by Psilocybeingzz
* Union Linked to Corruption Scandal lonestar2004 746 16 12/13/08 07:42 PM
by ScavengerType
* Labor Unions Anonymous 434 5 11/10/03 09:47 PM
by PsiloKitten
* Obama Has No Shot of Winning the Keystone State!
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
lonestar2004 4,516 85 10/31/08 08:43 PM
by saved by zero
* Federal vs state power
( 1 2 all )
SeussA 1,754 22 08/07/08 03:55 PM
by Seuss

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
1,301 topic views. 4 members, 1 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.121 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 19 queries.