Segregation now, segregation forever!

Dixie said:
I want EVERYTHING protected from change!
Click to expand...

Yikes! There's a signature. That's not even possible.

Dixie said:
Words fucking MEAN things! There is no rational or justifiable reason for changing what the word "marriage" means! The ONLY rational or logical reason you could possibly have, is to attack religious institutions! There is nothing else that even makes sense!
Click to expand...

You're right! Forget about marriage. They shouldn't even be allowed to use the word "gay", since that use to mean something else.
 
Dixie said:
It's obvious, unless you are retarded. Marriage is a widely held religious tradition and custom. Since the actual word "marriage" has nothing to do with what pro-gay-marriage advocates claim to want, there can't be many reasons left to insist upon usage of the word, in the face of an obvious and amicable solution to the issue. Can you come up with some? I can't, and I have racked my brain trying to think of one! The only viable reason I can see, is the intent to attack religious traditions, and religious customs. If that weren't the case, you would drop the issue of "gay marriage" and adopt a more reasonable view, one that has been proposed to you by a conservative, one that solves all the problems and gives both sides what they want.
Click to expand...

yes, I can... as you stated... marriage is a widely held religious tradition and it is a custom that has been around for centuries. Gay couples want to be a part of that custom. You seem to forget, many gay couples believe in God. Many are very religious. Just because many churches refuse to marry them doesn't change that.

That said... I have and always will be a proponent to get the government out of marriage all together. I have stated that many times. But as long as they ARE involved... it should be an equal opportunity for both gay and straight couples to suffer through the agony of marriage.
 
Dixie said:
They didn't engage in political debate on the issue! They didn't campaign or advocate for the issue! They didn't put the issue in their national platforms! It may not signify support for segregationist policies, but it sure doesn't imply there was a fight against them. You can say that "plenty opposed" the status quot when it came to segregation, but it wasn't "plenty" or the law would have changed, politicians would have campaigned on the issue, people would have initiated change, had that been the case. Let's tell the truth, shall we? Aside from a few black activists and a few pinhead liberal elites, no one in America was advocating against segregation until the early 60s.
Click to expand...

STFU! There were people pushing the envelope, people in power. Was Truman a pinhead?
 
RStringfield said:
Yikes! There's a signature. That's not even possible.
Click to expand...

Consider it a GOAL! I am opposed to randomly changing the meaning of words in our vocabulary. For instance, if we can willy-nilly change the meaning of marriage, why couldn't we willy-nilly change the meaning of "freedom" or "rights" or any number of other things in our everyday language? Seems to me, if you can make some precedent-setting case for arbitrarily changing the meaning of a word, then our Constitution and rule of law means absolutely nothing because the meaning can be changed on a whim!

You're right! Forget about marriage. They shouldn't even be allowed to use the word "gay", since that use to mean something else.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you agree with me on the silliness of Gay Marriage! Yes, let's DO forget about it, because it really isn't ever going anywhere in America. As for the word "gay" ...no one uses it in the old context anymore, so I think we can let them keep that one. See? I'm willing to be moderate! I can compromise!
 
Socrtease said:
Ended the Segregated Military and told every general that disagreed with it could put their resignations on his desk.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with promoting equality in American society? Military regulations simply do not apply to the civilian population. How are you making that connection?
 
Please keep Dixie occupied on this thread, so he doesn't have time to draft the 10+ paragraph "Brown's win shows America is a conservative nation" thread...
 
Dixie said:
What does that have to do with promoting equality in American society? Military regulations simply do not apply to the civilian population. How are you making that connection?
Click to expand...

Okay, dumbfuck. Political change happens all at once or not at all.

He pushed the fight forward. He did not just accept the status quo.
 
RStringfield said:
Further, I don't see why you disqualify the activism of the victims from the history of the struggle.
Click to expand...

I've not done that. You wish that were my position, but it's not one I have taken. I have not denied there were activists speaking out against segregation, I made that abundantly clear 50 posts back, it's not what I have said. Our society as a whole, including ALL the political representatives we elected to office, held a view condoning segregation, or tacitly refused to take a firm stand on the issue. That is the truth, that is how things were in America. You can deny that, and claim it wasn't the case, but it most certainly was.

The history of the struggle is, for nearly 100 years, there was no struggle, segregation was accepted and condoned, and affixed in our society by the politicians, congress, judges, and any other positions of authority, which were all controlled by white people!
 
Dixie said:
Why are you stuck on this, jarhead? I admit, right here in this very thread, yes... there were people in 1864 who thought slaves were equal to whites! Unfortunately, NONE of them were political figures, or able to be political figures, because the overwhelming majority of an ALL WHITE electorate, fundamentally disagreed with them! What the hell is your point???
Click to expand...

My point is that since America was founded there were plenty of people who knew that blacks and whites were equals and fought for the equal treatment of them by the government. These people were not a political force because the idea was not popular until Ameircan counshousness changed. These people were around in 1864 and celebrated the emansapation proclamation, dispite Lincon's intentions.

No matter how small, there were plenty of people who stood up for right even when the majority was against them.

Just like today, there are plenty of people who stand up for the rights of homosexuals even if the majority is against them. There are plenty of people who stand up for many things that are right that are not yet seen as such by society as of yet.

Just because no elected officials will admit to wanting to make pot legal, does not mean that there is not a huge group that wants to do so...

Healthcare for the poor and opressed is another issue that one day we will look back on and say... Wow, could you really get away with being against that back in the teens....

Meidcare was also fiercely opposed, but you will not catch a national canidate supporting doing away with it now!
 
In 2006 Dixie said, after an insurmountable amount of proof was provided to him...

"Upon further consideration, I withdraw the remark in question and stand corrected, there certainly were people in 1864, who thought slaves were equal to whites." - Dixie, July 2006.



Yesterday Dixie said...

Dixie said:
It's not a matter of it being wrong. We can all agree it was wrong, and I have never EVER articulated otherwise. Gay Marriage is nowhere near the same thing, and it is appalling to me, you would compare giving a black man the right to vote and engage in the American political process, is the same thing as offering sanctity and tradition up to homosexuals in order to mock religion. I just don't see where the two things are remotely close to each other.

Throughout history, there have not been people in political power, advocating change in our segregationist policy, prior to 1963! It doesn't exist, because black people were shut out of the political process, and it was not an issue, it was presumed and assumed you supported and condoned segregationist policy, because that was how things were in America. No one stood up and said it was bad! Everyone accepted it, and continued to condone it! Again, you want to try and pretend this was some long-standing moral fight, and it really wasn't a fight. Whether politicians and lawmakers openly spoke of support for segregationist policy or not, they did indeed condone and support the status quot for a century. We certainly DID live in a segregate society, and our governmental leadership was duplicitous in fostering and maintaining it.
Click to expand...

Then today said....

Dixie said:
Why are you stuck on this, jarhead? I admit, right here in this very thread, yes... there were people in 1864 who thought slaves were equal to whites! Unfortunately, NONE of them were political figures, or able to be political figures, because the overwhelming majority of an ALL WHITE electorate, fundamentally disagreed with them! What the hell is your point???
Click to expand...


How dizzy are you Dixie?
 
Last edited:
"Upon further consideration, I withdraw the remark in question and stand corrected, there certainly were people in 1864, who thought slaves were equal to whites." - Dixie, July 2006.
 
Jarod said:
My point is that since America was founded there were plenty of people who knew that blacks and whites were equals and fought for the equal treatment of them by the government. These people were not a political force because the idea was not popular until Ameircan counshousness changed. These people were around in 1864 and celebrated the emansapation proclamation, dispite Lincon's intentions.

No matter how small, there were plenty of people who stood up for right even when the majority was against them.
Click to expand...

Obviously there WEREN'T "PLENTY" or the laws would have long-since been changed! Obviously, there were actually very FEW... NOT PLENTY! You're not even making any sense here! What is your basis for belief that we had "plenty" of people who thought blacks were equal to whites in 1864 America? Other than a few isolated and mostly obscure intellectuals and activists, no one, including most abolitionists, believed blacks were equal to whites in America! This is precisely why we saw another 100 years pass before Civil Rights! If there had been "plenty of people" who felt that way in 1864, we would have bestowed Civil Rights on black Americans THEN... not a century later!
 
Dixie said:
Obviously there WEREN'T "PLENTY" or the laws would have long-since been changed! Obviously, there were actually very FEW... NOT PLENTY! You're not even making any sense here! What is your basis for belief that we had "plenty" of people who thought blacks were equal to whites in 1864 America? Other than a few isolated and mostly obscure intellectuals and activists, no one, including most abolitionists, believed blacks were equal to whites in America! This is precisely why we saw another 100 years pass before Civil Rights! If there had been "plenty of people" who felt that way in 1864, we would have bestowed Civil Rights on black Americans THEN... not a century later!
Click to expand...

Clearly there were not plenty enough to change the law. I was using Plenty in response to your statement that there were none! There were plenty to disprove your claim that there were none... I can see that I have to use more precise words when speaking with the likes of you.

There have always been people, going back past 1864, who belived that Black people and whilte people should be afforded equal protection under the law. There have always been people who spoke up against treating back people differently than white people, and there have always been people who did not condone treating black people differently than white people. There were always people who spoke up against the laws of segeration, even in 1864.
 
Dixie said:
I didn't say Marriage was solely a religious tradition. It is, however, a widely regarded part of religious custom and tradition, and vitally important to the institution of religion. We're not arguing whether marriage belongs only to religion, we are debating why you would want to usurp the traditional and customary meaning of "marriage" and my argument is, because you wish to attack religious tradition. That is the only thing that makes logical sense, but rather than admit this, you want to try and twist the debate into something else, claim I said something I never said, and make it about that, instead of providing some support for your view. Thanks for confirming you have no support for your view, and I am 100% correct in my evaluation.
Click to expand...

Onceler said:
You often say something like "it's the only thing which makes logical sense," or "it's the only logical conclusion." Since that's bullshit (almost all of the time, but particularly in this case), you should really add "in my warped & stupid mind."

So, it would go something like this: "It's the only logical conclusion, in my warped and stupid mind," or "it's the only thing which makes logical sense, in my warped and stupid mind."
Click to expand...

he shoots...HE SCORES!!

Of course, dix makes it seem pretty easy.
 
Dixie said:
I don't care what religious institutions do, it's none of the state's business anyway, or it shouldn't be. That is the purpose of the First Amendment, if I am not mistaken.

I am not "demanding" anything, moron. I suggested a reasonable and rational solution to the problem, a resolution to this issue which gives all sides what they want and doesn't destroy religious sanctity of marriage in the process. I think it's about the best possible compromise for all parties involved, and there has been no real argument presented against my suggestion.

You continue to try and warp my viewpoint into something I never said, make out like I have posted things I never posted, and continue debating the issue in the face of a reasonable rational solution. You continue to avoid giving any legitimate reason for your position, although you insist it isn't about bashing religion! Well, tell us what the purpose is then? Why do you HAVE to redefine the meaning of traditional marriage, at the expense of resolving the issue? I am still waiting for ANY reasonable explanation!
Click to expand...


I got news for ya...heterosexuals and their incessant need to divorce whomever they are currently with and "trade up" to a newer model, have pretty much destroyed the religious sanctity of marriage. And they've done it all by themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top