Anti-Homosexual Bigotry = 1950's Racism 2.0

I understand that, your kinda taking what i said out of context though. Obviously things like speed limits or the fact that murder is illegal should be laws, for the good of the people. However discrimination because of race is illegal, should it not be because theres a minority of people that still want to be able to lynch blacks?

I understand its a slippery slope, but i think we all know where the moral line is drawn.
 
Ben, i thought of a good example where limiting the freedom of the minority is a good thing, or atleast can be with good intentions.

suppose i have the dream of owning an Abrams tank, and driving it to work... now would this sort of situation be one of those where me being the minority can scream. "you're stepping on my freedoms"?
 
see above lol.

although you conservatives would love to own an abrams tank, isnt that part of the freedom to bear arms? hahaha jokes
 
the problem with the homosexual marriage argument, and the race argument of the 60's is that the people who vote to keep blacks out of white schools and not allow gays to marry think that they are doing it for the good of the people.
And i agree with you that most level headed people know where to draw the line.
 
lol i think we're going in circles here.

here is a PERFECT example where limiting the freedoms of the minority is a GREAT thing.

its all about where to draw the line, like you said, and people draw the line in different area's.
 
Without setting foot on the beach of ignorance for fear of being drowned in the tidal wave of stupidity that has been this thread, I should just point out that NS will soon be extending its no-racist-slurs policy to include a ban on homophobic or anti-gay slurs.
 
Thank you. Very much.

The ignorance shown in this thread is just too much. I'm not even going to post my opinion, it won't change anyone, nor will anyone do anything but over-analyze it, bring up some other examples/analogies to sound smart and then refute my ideas. So have fun in here kids. Hopefully our ideas will die with you (you know who you are).
 
does this include calling things gay? because that would make things interesting.

faggot should definitely be banned.
 
I'm pretty sure it includes everything. Like zero tolerance, 3 strikes and you're banned kind of deal. There will be a sticky thread when we've finished talking about it that will provide the info.
 
this site is slowly turning more and more into tgr.

what makes this site great is about to get banned.

Also, if anyone would like to point out what, legally speaking, rights have been infringed on? I think i did a pretty good job explaining that no rights have been infringed upon in anyway whatsoever.

Also i love the level of hipocrasy democrats are willing to accept. The fuck is wrong with you guys, seriously. When it comes to a social issue in which you, the minority, believe in, all of a sudden our system of democracy and adherence to the constitution goes right out the window.

but when we are trying to protect the physical welfare and lives of our citizens, the patriot act is an abomination.

make up your mind.
 
maybe no rights have been broken but it doesnt mean its right.
only allowing marriage's of gays to happen to people who they dont love is ruining the whole notion of what it is to be married to somebody
 
Everyone seems to have flown way off topic, so let me get everyone back on track here.

FIrst of all, this whole thing is hardly about love... in fact.. the last thing this is about is love. Love happens no matter what. I applaud Keith Olberman for his bleeding heart, I have it too.. but in this case.. love is far from the story.

First and foremost, this is about allowing homosexuals to marry, and file jointly on their tax returns. This file in turn allows easier access to buying a home, building and establishing credit, getting loans, caring for one another "in sickness and in health" (a la visiting one another in hospital), adopting children, getting car insurance.. life insurance.. health insurance.. etc insurance, starting a business, credit cards, and I can probably keep going on and on and on again all the way up to getting a FAMILY PHONE PLAN... lol.

By denying homosexuals the same rights to this is straight discrimination of sexual orientation, and denyal of the equal treatment given by the 14th amendment. I dont care what you say, tax rights are RIGHTS. They may not be written in fine print all over the constitution, but denying sombody the same rights that another, grown-ass, adult person based on the other grown-ass adult person they love, is ridiculous. Like olberman said, we repealed the old laws that made it illegal for african americans to marry back in the 1960's... 40 years today, and we are still treating homosexuals as if they are different. As if they are unnatrual.. which they are not. I have an article for you people who think otherwise should read. Homosexual behavior is evident all throughout nature... and hell.. god even created hermaphrodites and asexual reproduction before the creation of sexual reproduction...

For those of you, who might think "oh, well what if you want to marry your blood sister? or a child? or your dog, or a television set? If we allow gay marriage wouldnt we ahve to allow this too?" The fact of the matter is, that that is a terrible slipping slope to look down. Marriage including children will never happen. They are not adults, and therefore, have no say in adult affairs. Besides... since they cannot vote, there is no way that that would even hit the ballot. Same goes for those who want to marry dogs and Tele sets. You and your dog, and you and your TV set cannot have healthy relationships.. on this planet, only humans and humans can sustain a relationship.

From there we go into the whole line, "well, they cannot reproduce! the whole reason behind marriage is so you can reproduce!". Neither can my father, or mother... should we take away their marriage? My father got snip snipped (as much as I didnt want to know that.. I do), and my mom has been through menaupause. Also, what about the millions of people who are born sterile? Should we deny them marriage? My ex girlfriend in high school was unable to have kids on her own. She was born pre-maturely, and had no ovaries. For I or anyone else to deny somebody marriage based on the fact that they cannot marry, is perposterous.

The only reason prop 8 passed with a mere 52% majority was because of the terrible political campaign paid for by the Mormons, Catholics, and Fundamentalists. They sent out commercials saying that gay marriage would be taught in schools, and churches would be forced to allow gay marriage, and that gay marriage was a "mandatory" thing.

First off, what is with these christian groups paying 75 million toward a campaign? thats obstruction of the separation of church and state - something that IS REAL. There IS SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE... how the fuck else would I have gone to catholic school for 10 years and be taught by uncredited teachers the whole time? Meh.. thats another story. There is sep. of church & state, and those loopholes that allowed this crap should be shut rigjht away.

secondly, when the fuck has anyone been taught about even REGULAR marriage in school? I know I never was growing up, and again.. i went to CATHOLIC school, where marriage is considered a sacrament...

Also, BECAUSE of separation of church and state, there was no "gay marriage is mandatory in churches" bullshit. Churches could deny that kinda thing any way they wanted to. Nobody contested that.

This proposition is unjust, and discriminatory. It was passed only by a 4 point margin. It actually was turned down in northern california counties by a 57% NO vote.

It will go back to court again, and potentially rise to national heights, where a supreme court case might be where it is headed...

I'm pretty optimistic, personally... because judges up there are a bit better at interpreting the constitution than the average idiot. I think gay marriage will be allowed nationwide within the next 10 years, for sure.
 
you are one ignorant little fuck

and juminster, you stated that no rights have been violated? are you fucked in the head? does the constitution of the united states of america not say that the pursuit of happiness is a protected right for all american citizens so long that it doesn not bring harm to other people? this in no way harms anyone, sure it may make a some people a little uncomfortable, but no physical harm is done. proposition 8 is unconstitutional according to the federal government, which all states have to abide by.
 
The most important thing to note is that homosexuals are people just as much as blacks, asians, whites, Jews, muslims, skiers, snowboarders, and airport security guards are.

We should treat them with the same respect that is given to any other person, regardless of how hard it is to understand how they feel towards somebody of the same sex. They just want to be accepted into the same society that everyone lives in, without the bullshit.

Personally, I dont even understand the same sex attraction... but frankly, I dont care. I dont understand what I'm doing on this earth either, so... touche to that.

 
you spent a lot of words typing up somethign that is false.

please re-read my legal analysis on the subject for how you think the rights are infringed.

why is polygamy illegal?

donations to a campaign is not a violation of church and state. special interest lobbying is just one part of democracy.

again, it is not discriminatory nor is it unject.
 
Why don't you just quote people you disagree with and say "No, sorry, I'm right" instead? It would be quicker.
 
no actually you're just moot. OH DAMN I USED THE WORD MOOT IM SO EDUCATED. (just kidding but its annoying when you throw out all these big words trying to sound like your right because your smart, which you are, but I can see through that).

You say that its not a constitutional right for gays to marry but really were all humans. the constituion said "all humans are created equal." I read your whole thing about the govenrment bullshit but your argument is still stupid. It comes down to being equal humans. Its not up to the states or the cities. Its up to the country. Although it does say that matrimony is between man and woman that was written in a time where being gay was also looked down on. Times have changed. It doesnt mean there werent gay people back then, they just werent as open about it because society was not accepting of them yet. To me all humans being equal overrides that notion that marriage is just between a man and a women, that makes gays unequal. That is unconstitutional.
 
that wasn't nearly as satisfying.

Seriously JD rather than banning the use of words, i think you should ban people who are idiots. I try to sound civil without making any personal attacks, but when you guys try to argue shit you guys sound like such idiots.

First of all, the constitution doesnt say "all humans are created equal" it doesnt even say "all men are created equal."

Second of all I'm not saying it is or isnt a constitutional right for gays to marry. I'm saying the federal Constitution of the United States of America does not apply nor has any relevance in the realm of Prop 8. Please learn how to read before posting.

The term marriage is constantly redefined by the votes of the people. Obviously times haven't changed yet as it was the PEOPLE who voted against it.

I don't even know what to say to the next sentence; it makes no sense.

Again, the federal Constitution has nothing to do with the deal at hand. Again, please learn how to read.

Obviously you can't see through my language as you can't understand it. Once again, reread what I said. I'm saying whatever you believe the Constitution doesn't apply here as the power to marry is a power of the State not of hte Federal Gov't and that case law pertaining to the 14th ammendment have not been established on terms of marriage through Stare Deisis (i had to put that vocab in there to make my explanation a little more convaluted).

 
JD, i know youre canadian; i know you like to spell "flavor," "flavour,"; i know you prefer Fowler's over Strunk and White, and i know you study constitutional law as it pertains to the Canadian constitution.

But you have to at least in part agree with me this time right?
 
seriously cause that's all hes doing is quoting people then saying no your false, read my argument. maybe you should stick to math problems, and yeah maybe your educated on our government system and the exact way shit works but you are mentally clouded when it comes to coming up with a good reason to why others shouldn't have the rights you have. Maybe you should stay out of debating social issues cause you clearly are ignorant to those. I personally don't give a fuck if someone is economically conservative cause i am too. I believe in free market, but that stupid close mindedness that conservatives have towards trying to invade others social rights is the biggest bunch of crap. Seriously get a life or go live on an island where you dont have to live with gays or blacks or whoever else you discriminate upon. Or you know what jumiester you can just move to cuba cause nothings changed there since the 1950's.
 
or you can reread something you clearly didnt understand. wait 2 seconds i'll repost it for you so you can take it and refute it point by point.
 
there's technically no seperation of church and state in state

constitutions and supreme court precedence doesnt uphold the 14th

amendment to all things in the bill of rights for states yet.

We have some incorporation such as privacy for roe v. wade, double

jeapordy for palko v connecticut, free speech cases obviously, but per

state constitutions, it is a local vote.

if the majority of the people in a constituency don't want something, then they shouldnt have to.

think about it, by the same logic thats the only reason im gonna have

to pay ridic capital gains and income tax when i get out of college.

i don't want income redistribution, it sounds illegal (its a violation

of the 14th amendment; equal protection, as well as a violation of our

basic foundation of no taxation without representation- if i get taxed

more shouldnt i deserve more representation?) but i deal with it

because the majority of people have voted it into law.

when social paradigm shifts enough for the majority of a certain

district to tolerate same sex marriage, then they can grant the state

that power.

afterall, the power to marry is a power vested in the state and all

laws should be voted on in this country right? If the vote says no,

then the law should be no.
 
the good reason is if the majority of the constituents of a democratic government wish to preserve their definition of marriage and family by means of popular vote, then they have every right to.
 
I understand that but the constitution said "all 'men' which means people humans are created equal. I understand that maybe legally its the states power to make marriage laws but what I'm saying is that it shouldnt be state issue, Im say that the constitution of our country should override that because after all those states are in America, there not separate and Im also saying that even if marriage is a state power, they shouldnt be the ones able to decide who is able to marry whom.

Basically what you are saying is that if it was a state power to segregate then you would be ok with that even though the constituion of the United States says that all men are created equal.

Its similar to gay marriage because its still infringing on a gay persons right to marry and if they cant marry that makes them unequal.

I know I am not going to change your mind because you clearly have your beliefs but thats all im gonna say im done debating this. Ive said my piece.

 
i understand what your saying that the law does not prevent prop 8, i understand that. however this i disagree with.

before there were anti discrimination laws, did that give people the right to pass discriminatory laws against blacks? not constitutionally but morally speaking.

not to mention the whole definition thing, which i continue to say, define the word as you wish personally, however if a homosexual couple goes to a court, they should be allowed to be married.
 
Ill say one more thing, i understand marriage is a whole legal process but Im on the side of keith olberman whatever his name is. this shouldnt be a political issue it should be a right for everyone regardless of sexual orientation, race whatever it is.
 
1. Lemme rephrase: it does not say "all men are created equal" in the constitution. No where. Go google "constitution." Press ctrl+F. Type in equal. Press enter. Lemme know what you come up with.

2. You have a very poor understanding of the system of federalism. The constitution does not override states in any capacity except those already established through incorporation. If you're all about the constitutionality of the subject and the bill of rights then how bout this:

Amendment X (of the bill of rights): powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states.

It was a state power to segregate. It was deemed illegal, through a democratic process, with the 14th amendment.

Since sexual orientation is slightly different than gender or race (it is. if being gay was a genetic matter, than any gay member of a pair of identical twins [not fraternal] would have a gay identical twin as they have the exact same DNA and genes), it needs its own precedent and statute. It's also a matter of defining the term marriage.

Ben: The term itself cannot be simply defined by anyone. It must be defined by the institution that issues marriage in the first place. How can a body issue something if it doesnt define it? Since that institution happens to be state governments, then it is up to state governments to define marriage. Since popular vote happens to decide almost all matters in California, it is up to popular vote to define marriage. Since the majority of people define marriage a matrimonious union between a man and a woman, thats the definiton of marriage.

period.
 
actually those motherfuckers are racist pro filer's (jokes) i got SS'd last time i went through security. almost missed my flight because of it.

(special screening) SS

seriously they can see my dad is an airline pilot, i know the program here people. work with me. lol
 
im not trying to argue with the legality of it, i realize thats the way the law works. im saying we need to CHANGE the law, so that along with discrimination in terms of sex and race, sexual preference cannot be discriminated against. although some sort of clause needs to be included that does not force churches to marry gays.
 
theres an inherent flaw with that idea though because technically there is nothing discriminatory with allowing same sex marriage. any person gay or straight has the right to marry as long as its a union between a man and woman.

What you need is to CHANGE the definition of marriage. and the only way to do that on a state by state level is through popular vote.
 
Jumister's inability to grasp the difference between an argument governed primarily by principles of ethical philosophy and one governed by genetics or legalistic notions of rights makes me...

facepalm.jpeg

 
Luckily for us, the U.S. doesn't have a truly "democratic" system of government and also lucky for us power in numbers or the power of the majority doesn't always dictate what is right. The truth is that Proposition 8 should never have been on the ballot in California in the first place. The vast majority of the population of not only California, but also of the United States, is too ignorant to be able to make an educated decision about anything let alone a constitutional matter. You are correct that the people who voted for Prop 8 have the right to express their opinion, that is why the Ku Klux Klan is still allowed to demonstrate. But just because the government and constitution allows them to express their opinion in a peaceful manner doesn't make their opinion any less wrong. If the United states would have followed your logic in the 50's and 60's, jumister, we would still be making people of African American descent pee in a different place than white people. Thankfully our Constitution, while being clearly defined, is fluid, and meant to be interpreted based on the social climate and knowledge of the day.
In the end, nothing you, or anyone who voted for Prop 8 for that matter, say will make a difference because in a very short time the case of gay marriage WILL go before the Supreme Court and it will be overturned and this fight won't need to be fought in any other state because the Supreme Court's ruling will set a precedent the likes of which we have not seen since Brown v. Board of Education.
 
but technically arent you discriminating in that you arent allowing them to make the choice they want to make? i guess not, but then the definition is unfair, and i think needs to be changed.
 
This actually isn't true. You don't need a popular vote. The legislature of each state has the power to enact laws as they see fit, they only pass it off to the people when they are too scared to make a decision for fear of reprisal from the electorate. On top of that, the state Supreme Court also has the power to set precedent that will form law.Once again I will say that Propositions should not exist in the first place. They are are a misguided attempt to give the people the feeling of control which they do not deserve. The average voter, even the well informed voter, does not have enough information to vote responsibly on a proposition that will allow or disallow gay marriage, just as they don't have enough information to vote on a proposition that concerns the construction of a $180 billion high speed rail system. NO one knows the effects either of these things will have on the state whether it be political, monetary, or otherwise.
Just remember, the average person has not read the U.S. Constitution in full, let alone their own state's constitution.
 
Honestly, you could argue that the average voter doesn't have enough information to be qualified to vote on anything, for that matter, so I suppose then your solution must be... philosopher kingdom? Yay Plato!
 
Haha. Well actually I would love that, but if I say that people call me an elitist, just like you are insinuating. So that doesn't really work out that well for my argument. Doesn't make it any less true. Most of our problems today would be solved if the average person didn't have the ability to decide anything in our society. There is a reason there were only 55 delegates to the Constitutional Congress.
And really it isn't the people's fault at all. The scope of our government has become so great that even the majority of people within our government can't even be knowledgeable enough to make educated decisions on issues. Yes they have advisors to educate them or suggest a course of action but even the advisors have to concentrate on a small portion of a certain issue just to become an "expert."
 
I think you have misunderstood me. I am an avowed elitist! It may be lonely up here at the top, but damned if there isn't a nice view.

If there was a way to find uncorruptible leaders philosopher kingdoms would make sense. However, they have thus far failed miserably for wont of such leaders. Something vaguely resembling democracy is the only realistic option, and it becomes a matter of improving that democracy with mandatory education and maybe even selective enfranchisement (you can only vote if you can pass a citizenship test). However that presents problems of further marginalization of minorities (and they already are marginalized), because the social makeup of the country currently places certain groups of people among the ranks of the uneducated on a massively disporportionate scale. Basically what I'm saying is, there may be a solution, but it'd be very complicated, expensive and controversial, and I'll be damned if I'm going to try to think one up unless someone's paying me a lot of money, so if you'll excuse me I'm going to go back to working on tax law. Yawn!
 
I dont know about you, but I go by the philosophy of "all or none". Meaning, if one group, or one person recieves a benefit, then everyone should recieve the same benefit. Civil unions differ from state to state, and in many states, its downright illegal for even civil unions to happen. They do not guerantee people the ability to keep their status as a couple if they move, and they do not give the same benefits of a married couple.

If they DID give the same benefits of a married couple, then we wouldnt be having this bloody conversation!!

Why is polygamy Illegal? I frankly don't know why it is. I honestly dont give a shit WHAT those people do out there in the middle of nowhere. I just dont agree with many of their treatments of children aka: forcing marriage at 14 is not cool. Forcing marriage PERIOD is not cool... But that is another story. We are talking about homosexuals, not polygamists. Open up a thread on that if you want to talk about it instead of trying to change the subject...

Donations to a proposition campaign that is being heald from a state politics level directly from a religious institution in order to turn a campaign in the favor of their "beliefs" is fucking lame. I dont care if it's technically legal, 75 million dollars going towards TV ads that lie straight through their teeth is fucking bullshit. Seriously. Look at some of the commercials on Youtube, or something. The Yes on 8 campaign was a dirty campaign. Period. Hell.. everything down to how it was worded on the ballot was fucking skewed.

This issue has been on the ballot 3 times since 1998. This is the only time it passed in favor of discrimination. It passed 52-48. It's going to court, and will likely be put back up as soon as next year. This issue is far from over...
 
But it is a Christian issue. Muslims make up a negligible portion of those that voted yes on prop 8. I don't have statistics but come on...there does not exist a powerful Muslim lobbyist group in this country that funds campaigns of senators, reps., etc. This legislation was certainly not sponsored or authored by Muslims. This is undoubtedly an example of church sponsored discrimination. It's an absolute joke.

Why even bring up Christianity's relative tolerance to Islam? It's completely irrelevant. That's like saying waterboarding and humiliating prisoners is acceptable because it isn't as bad as beheadings or stonings.

The fact is, that whether you consider yourself to be a Christian of the non-meddling variety or not, there are still millions that are greatly invested in limiting the freedoms of others based on the teachings of the bible.

As a nation, we will look back at this legislation (and the mindset that it is indicative of) and be embarrassed much in the same way that we are embarrassed about the treatments of blacks pre-civil rights era.
 
just don't be an asshole. that's all the information you need. gay people are different and make many feel weird a lot of times including myself, but they still deserve the right to marry because they are men/women who do the same stuff as we do, just put their junk into dudes asses, not girls vag's and lesbos just eat eachother out and dildo the crap out of eachother. yeah its a bit funky but don't be an asshole and let them be and let them do what they want. your kid will not turn out gay unless it is born gay so don't even worry about it.
i didnt use any scholarly evidence or any kind of big words, because it really shouldn't be a scholarly issue. just let people who are a bit different than us do what they want and need to do. they work for their money too just as hard as we do, they play sports like we do (some straight SLAY it i remember hurdling against a guy named david clech who is super gay who ran the 110 high hurdles in 13.9), so why can't they officially share love with their lover like we do? DONT BE AN ASSHOLE.
 
The idea that marriage is sacred went out the window when divorce rates went above 50%. People can have 4-5 spouses and it can remain sacred yet a gay couple can't validate the same?

Idk in France they perform a civil union through the state and if you want a religious ceremony you may do that as well but separately. I think it's absurd to think we still have ministers and clergy that have the power to perform state duties. There really should be a separation of church and state in which case we wouldn't even have this problem anymore. Under law everything is a civil union and to deny at least those rights to gay couples is ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top