But same sex marriage would destroy the institution

PostmodernProphet said:
yes, it did....that's why those who were opposed to bi-racial marriage had to pass laws preventing it.....because without those laws they would have been able to get married.....
Click to expand...

Nope. Interracial marriages were strictly forbidden. At first the state issued license for exceptions. That is what a license is, a grant to do something that without a license would be illegal.

gays cannot be married because the union between two people of the same sex isn't marriage......if two gays go to a church and engage in a marriage ceremony, people can nod their heads and smile and say "that's nice".....but nobody else has to pay attention to it because it simply isn't a marriage....

that's why you need to recognize this issue has nothing to do with right or relationships.....it is all about acceptance.....forcing everyone to treat the union between two people of the same sex as the equivalent of the union between the man and a woman.....

if you want to commit your life to another man, go for it.....just leave the rest of us out of it....
Click to expand...

You don't have the right to ignore the contractual agreements of others. If you interfere in those contracts you may be held liable. I don't see why it should be different here. You don't have the right to ignore their contractual agreements and commitments. You don't have to include them in your newylwed group, but nobody asked you to.

You can pretend all you like that the all powerful definition always was and always will be and quickly shove data showing that to be in error down a memory hole, but it does not change the fact that the definition has changed. It has changed significantly just in our nation's short history.
 
RStringfield said:
Nope. Interracial marriages were strictly forbidden. At first the state issued license for exceptions. That is what a license is, a grant to do something that without a license would be illegal.



You don't have the right to ignore the contractual agreements of others. If you interfere in those contracts you may be held liable. I don't see why it should be different here. You don't have the right to ignore their contractual agreements and commitments. You don't have to include them in your newylwed group, but nobody asked you to.

You can pretend all you like that the all powerful definition always was and always will be and quickly shove data showing that to be in error down a memory hole, but it does not change the fact that the definition has changed. It has changed significantly just in our nation's short history.
Click to expand...

Seems like Prophet would feel better, if them there gays would just stick to jumping the broom.
 
RStringfield said:
Nope. Interracial marriages were strictly forbidden. At first the state issued license for exceptions. That is what a license is, a grant to do something that without a license would be illegal.
Click to expand...
that's it in a nutshell....inter-racial marriages were forbidden.....gay marriage isn't forbidden, it's impossible....unless marriage is changed to mean something different...

You don't have the right to ignore their contractual agreements and commitments.
Click to expand...

sure I do.....I am only bound by agreements that I have entered into...

but it does not change the fact that the definition has changed. It has changed significantly just in our nation's short history.
Click to expand...

the definition has not changed....a minority of people hope it will, but it has not....
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So prior to the court telling everyone that it was against the law to have laws regarding inter-racial marriages, it was OK??
Click to expand...

????...no....telling people who are able to marry that they cannot marry because of their race was discriminatory......as opposed to telling people they cannot marry because it's impossible to marry someone of the same sex is merely pointing out an obvious reality.....
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
We've already done this dance, String. Seems you just trailed off when you couldn't logically or factually fault me on what I was saying.

Start with Post #120, and then take it from there.
Click to expand...

RStringfield said:
Uhhh... no. the last post in the earlier exchange, 193, was mine. You never gave any further support to your ridiculous notion that discrimination must be based on something that is visually obvious.
Click to expand...

Whoops, you'd be right to say that I didn't respond to that post. My error! As to your typical supposition as to my argument, that's just more of your inane posturing. So in the interest of fairness, let's see what you got.

- you stated that "There is no need to repeat everything that has been said in each and every post." However, given your penchant to revise the content of what I previous wrote and to falsely categorize what exactly transpired, I see no other option in order for the reader to get a true version.

- I wrote, "Anyone can think bad thoughts, ENFORCING THEM against someone requires a person to be able to PHYSICALLY IDENTIFY THE OBJECT OF THEIR PREJUDICE TO ACTIVELY DISCRIMINATE. Unless of course, you know of people perpetuating the Vulcan mind meld. Your repeating your illogical stance is irrelevant."

Your response: A bigot needs to know the person is a member of the group he/she wishes to persecute in order to persecute them in a discriminatory way, yes. They don't need to be able to identify them through visual information alone. Your point that being black is usually obvious through sight alone does not mean that discrimination based on things that might not be obvious visually is somehow not discrimination or less discriminatory."

I underlined the sentence that best demonstrates your willfull ignorance and/or revisionist idea of what black folk went through in America in their quest for equality. THEY WERE OVERWHELMINGLY IDENTIFIED BY PHYSICAL FEATURES INDICATIVE TO PEOPLE OF AFRICAN DESCENT. Only in a small fraction of cases were inter-racial sex (VERY small open marriages) in some areas produced a population were "mulattoes" or "creoles" or "high yellahs" were ALLOWED to existence in a quasi-human being/citizen state for the sake of commerce could you make the argument of comparison to gay civil rights struggle. BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, RACE DETERMINED BY PHYSICAL FEATURES (i.e., black skin) WAS THE FINAL GRADIENT FOR 3 CENTURIES THAT AFFECTED MILLIONS OF AFRICAN DESCENDED PEOPLE....AND LAST TIME I CHECKED, HOMOSEXUALITY DID NOT CONSTITUTE A RACE. That is the erroneous comparison used continually by gay rights folk...that is what YOU are desperately trying to avoid and cloud over. That is what you are failing to achieve.

- You wrote "Are you arguing that discrimination based on religion or caste is not discrimination? What about discrimination against ethnic groups where membership in the targeted group is not obvious?"

You throw this in as a typical dodge to avoid dealing with my logical explanation of the flaw in your assertion that gay civil rights movement is an on-par comparison to black civil rights movement. To ease your fevered brow, I'm NOT arguing about religion or caste, and dicrimination against ethnic groups requires one to acknowledge a RACIAL and not a SEXUAL bias. ANYONE CAN BE GAY, but NOT everyone can be Polish, or Puerto Rican or Serbian or Irish or Maltese, etc., etc. Those are ethnic derivatives of RACES. Nothing "chickenshit" about that....but you sure as hell want to pretend there is no difference.

- You wrote, "It is ignorant to claim that discrimination must be based on information gained through sight alone. You are apparently confusing racism and discrimination as being the same thing."

Actually, you've just described YOUR insipid argument. YOU are the one that keeps trying to say that being discriminated against because you are black is the same or similar as being discriminated against for being gay. That is just plain dumb on your part...and if you don't believe me ask any gay black guy who gets pulled over for "driving while black"....and then gets beat up by a bunch of black guys for being scene coming out of a gay bar. To versions of discrimination....BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS (if you don't get it yet, here's a hint: the cop didn't know the black guy was gay). Get it together String...you tripping over your own bullshit.
 
RStringfield said:
You are arguing that they are not comparable at all. Nobody said they were identical struggles. Of course not, largely because the previous struggles shape the next. IMO, the struggle for civil rights is one movement.

They are TWO DISTINCT STRUGGLES FOR TWO DISTINCT DIFFERENT REASONS. What seems to piss you off is that I point out that distinction, which renders a popular talking point by gay activists useless. Tough donuts.



The only distinction between the two struggles you cite is the greater suffering of blacks. That is not relevant unless you are demanding blood from gays before they are given equal rights. Yes, blacks suffered more. So?

So you're either you don't comprehend what you read or you're a liar. I NEVER cited that blacks suffering more was why gay rights advocates are wrong in comparing their struggle to black folks. If you can provide a quote to that effect, then produce it. If not, then stop being dishonest in this discussion and stick to the FACTS.

I have not heard you correct you errors nor have you responded concerning those examples.

Then go back, read the exchanges and then read what I told others on this issue. I'm getting tired of repeating myself.



I did not look at 188 or anything previous because you have not responded to 193. You have not given any compelling argument for you ignorant notion that discrimination must be based on visual information alone. Again, you must be confusing discrimination and racism as being the same thing.
__________________
Click to expand...

You are right, I missed 193. I did today....READ IT CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Whoops, you'd be right to say that I didn't respond to that post. My error! As to your typical supposition as to my argument, that's just more of your inane posturing. So in the interest of fairness, let's see what you got.

- you stated that "There is no need to repeat everything that has been said in each and every post." However, given your penchant to revise the content of what I previous wrote and to falsely categorize what exactly transpired, I see no other option in order for the reader to get a true version.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Taichiliberal said:
- I wrote, "Anyone can think bad thoughts, ENFORCING THEM against someone requires a person to be able to PHYSICALLY IDENTIFY THE OBJECT OF THEIR PREJUDICE TO ACTIVELY DISCRIMINATE. Unless of course, you know of people perpetuating the Vulcan mind meld. Your repeating your illogical stance is irrelevant."

Your response: A bigot needs to know the person is a member of the group he/she wishes to persecute in order to persecute them in a discriminatory way, yes. They don't need to be able to identify them through visual information alone. Your point that being black is usually obvious through sight alone does not mean that discrimination based on things that might not be obvious visually is somehow not discrimination or less discriminatory."
Click to expand...

Exactly, any response?

I underlined the sentence that best demonstrates your willfull ignorance and/or revisionist idea of what black folk went through in America in their quest for equality. THEY WERE OVERWHELMINGLY IDENTIFIED BY PHYSICAL FEATURES INDICATIVE TO PEOPLE OF AFRICAN DESCENT. Only in a small fraction of cases were inter-racial sex (VERY small open marriages) in some areas produced a population were "mulattoes" or "creoles" or "high yellahs" were ALLOWED to existence in a quasi-human being/citizen state for the sake of commerce could you make the argument of comparison to gay civil rights struggle. BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, RACE DETERMINED BY PHYSICAL FEATURES (i.e., black skin) WAS THE FINAL GRADIENT FOR 3 CENTURIES THAT AFFECTED MILLIONS OF AFRICAN DESCENDED PEOPLE....AND LAST TIME I CHECKED, HOMOSEXUALITY DID NOT CONSTITUTE A RACE. That is the erroneous comparison used continually by gay rights folk...that is what YOU are desperately trying to avoid and cloud over. That is what you are failing to achieve.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they could most often be identified by sight. So? The point is it is not necessary to identify the target by sight in order for discrimination to be present. You are still NOT responding. You just continue to repeat your stupid assertion and shower us with what you seem to think are fantastic insights, like homosexuals are not a race. Really! Wow, thanks for the info.

- You wrote "Are you arguing that discrimination based on religion or caste is not discrimination? What about discrimination against ethnic groups where membership in the targeted group is not obvious?"

You throw this in as a typical dodge to avoid dealing with my logical explanation of the flaw in your assertion that gay civil rights movement is an on-par comparison to black civil rights movement. To ease your fevered brow, I'm NOT arguing about religion or caste, and dicrimination against ethnic groups requires one to acknowledge a RACIAL and not a SEXUAL bias. ANYONE CAN BE GAY, but NOT everyone can be Polish, or Puerto Rican or Serbian or Irish or Maltese, etc., etc. Those are ethnic derivatives of RACES. Nothing "chickenshit" about that....but you sure as hell want to pretend there is no difference.
Click to expand...

It's not a dodge. It is an illustration of the point you continue to dodge.
You can't reliably tell a person is Polish by sight.

Again, yes there are differences. The visual identification is a difference, just a completely irrelevant one to the question of whether discrimination exists. Discrimination is discrimination whether you can see see the person is a target or because you base it on knowledge that their name ends in "ski."


- You wrote, "It is ignorant to claim that discrimination must be based on information gained through sight alone. You are apparently confusing racism and discrimination as being the same thing."

Actually, you've just described YOUR insipid argument. YOU are the one that keeps trying to say that being discriminated against because you are black is the same or similar as being discriminated against for being gay. That is just plain dumb on your part...and if you don't believe me ask any gay black guy who gets pulled over for "driving while black"....and then gets beat up by a bunch of black guys for being scene coming out of a gay bar. To versions of discrimination....BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS (if you don't get it yet, here's a hint: the cop didn't know the black guy was gay). Get it together String...you tripping over your own bullshit.
Click to expand...

You just gave a valid comparison of discrimination against blacks and gays and how they may be similar. Nobody is arguing they are exactly the same. If that is your point then it is about as insightful as your point that homosexuals are not a race and the only response is, "no shit, Sherlock."

They are not identical but they are certainly comparable.
 
You ignorantly seem to think the method of target identification must be identical before any comparison can be made between different forms of discrimination. That is just stupid. All forms of discrimination share common traits. That's why they are labeled discrimination, duh. Of course, comparisons can be drawn between them. They are not identical, just similar.

I honestly do not see why you believe that is relevant unless you mean to say gay people can go back in the closet. It would not have been okay to beat up black people even if they could have hid or blended into society.
 
They are TWO DISTINCT STRUGGLES FOR TWO DISTINCT DIFFERENT REASONS. What seems to piss you off is that I point out that distinction, which renders a popular talking point by gay activists useless. Tough donuts.
Click to expand...

You just responded to my statement that they are different, ditsyliberal. Everyone knows that. It's not the ground breaking insight that you believe it is. And you continue to dodge the question of, so fucking what?

I said I view the struggle for civil rights as one movement but it started before this country was born. Our courts view it the same way. That does not mean they are not also separate and distinct struggles. But they are without any doubt interconnected as the arguments have been applied from one to another. That is our system of common law. If the federal courts hear any cases they will certainly draw comparisons between the two as I am certain the state courts who have overturned marriage laws did.

So you're either you don't comprehend what you read or you're a liar. I NEVER cited that blacks suffering more was why gay rights advocates are wrong in comparing their struggle to black folks. If you can provide a quote to that effect, then produce it. If not, then stop being dishonest in this discussion and stick to the FACTS.
Click to expand...

You said the two were not comparable and then went into history of the suffering of blacks. #248. If that isn't your point then what is?
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
I long for the good old days, when what happened in the privacy of your bedroom happened in the privacy of your bedroom rather than in the courthouse....
Click to expand...

The problem is thats not what happened. Men were jailed for having sex with other men. Or they were beaten or murdered and nothing was done.

Those same "Good Ol' Days" had spousal abuse swept under the rug, child abuse ignored, and more.

What goes on in the privacy of your bedroom is more private now than ever before. This is not about sex. The sex is happening in bedrooms all over the nation. That won't change, regardless of the outcome of this debate.

What this debate is about is the benefits bestowed on couples by the gov't.
 
RStringfield said:
You ignorantly seem to think the method of target identification must be identical before any comparison can be made between different forms of discrimination. That is just stupid. All forms of discrimination share common traits. That's why they are labeled discrimination, duh. Of course, comparisons can be drawn between them. They are not identical, just similar.

I honestly do not see why you believe that is relevant unless you mean to say gay people can go back in the closet. It would not have been okay to beat up black people even if they could have hid or blended into society.
Click to expand...

just like it's not ok to discriminate against white males in the work place.

WHy are your ethics situational?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top