| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/26/2013 02:06:47 PM · #6226 |
Originally posted by Mike:
its what the people want so give it to them. |
Not the point. It's what equality demands. |
|
|
|
06/26/2013 02:33:58 PM · #6227 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by scalvert, 7/1/2011:
gay marriage will be federally recognized within 5 years, and more likely within two. |
Yup, two years. :-) |
Hang on to that Chrystal Ball,  SCalvert. It's a keeper. |
|
|
|
06/26/2013 03:08:41 PM · #6228 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
its what the people want so give it to them. |
Not the point. It's what equality demands. |
sure, but if you have enough support against equality, you dont get equality. its that simple. This should have never gone to the SC but to many influential people with money opposed it.
you can argue equal rights all you want, but we dont have rights, we have privileges. |
|
|
|
06/26/2013 03:11:27 PM · #6229 |
Originally posted by Mike:
you can argue equal rights all you want, but we dont have rights, we have privileges. |
What does this even MEAN? |
|
|
|
06/26/2013 04:05:53 PM · #6230 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mike:
you can argue equal rights all you want, but we dont have rights, we have privileges. |
What does this even MEAN? |
I think he's being pragmatic, and I can't say I disagree all that much. When the rubber hits the road your ability to exercise 'inherent' rights is usually handed to you by someone, and so many times it's only when good people have fought for the ability to exercise them and won.
Why he's talking about that dynamic in this context, I have no idea. Maybe it's to make changes feel less inevitable?
I am most happy with lagnuage in the decisions directly addressing two things very clearly:
- Those against equal marriage rights were unable to demonstrate harm, the very reason the question of standing was decided the way it was... you must prove harm to have standing. They could not. Voila, back to the 9th. Pure procedure.
- Conversely, during testimony even those against equal marriage rights were forced to concede real, concrete harms to unmarried gays, married gays, and their children because of anti-gay bias and legislation. The court does not toss around words like "humiliates" and "burdens" lightly.
So, a totally simple question... if the highest paid, mode fervent, and I assume most knowledgeable people on a subject being debated at the national level, in pubic, can't come up a single harm to straights from letting gays marry... a single legitimate harm... we're including the erosion of religious liberty here too... why oh why do these things always come up in forums like this so frequently? What process explains that?
|
|
|
|
06/26/2013 04:08:54 PM · #6231 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
So, a totally simple question... if the highest paid, mode fervent, and I assume most knowledgeable people on a subject being debated at the national level, in pubic, can't come up a single harm to straights from letting gays marry... a single legitimate harm... |
Like this? |
|
|
|
06/26/2013 05:55:20 PM · #6232 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
its what the people want so give it to them. |
Not the point. It's what equality demands. |
sure, but if you have enough support against equality, you dont get equality. its that simple. This should have never gone to the SC but to many influential people with money opposed it.
you can argue equal rights all you want, but we dont have rights, we have privileges. |
...like the church?
Ray |
|
|
|
06/26/2013 06:01:52 PM · #6233 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mike:
you can argue equal rights all you want, but we dont have rights, we have privileges. |
What does this even MEAN? |
Like you my friend, I am confused as to what  Mike is trying to convey here.
Certain pieces of legislation such as the issuance of a driver's licence are a "priviledge", but others, such as those dealing with discrimination are recognized "Rights".
Best we wait and see what Mike meant.
Ray
Message edited by author 2013-06-26 18:02:03. |
|
|
|
06/26/2013 06:28:02 PM · #6234 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mike:
you can argue equal rights all you want, but we dont have rights, we have privileges. |
What does this even MEAN? |
Like you my friend, I am confused as to what Mike is trying to convey here.
Certain pieces of legislation such as the issuance of a driver's licence are a "priviledge", but others, such as those dealing with discrimination are recognized "Rights".
Best we wait and see what Mike meant.
Ray |
Possibly Mike's saying that what "we" consider to be "rights" are determined by consensus, that "rights" are not universal, and that different societies might recognize different "rights" than "we" do... |
|
|
|
06/26/2013 09:23:36 PM · #6235 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mike:
you can argue equal rights all you want, but we dont have rights, we have privileges. |
What does this even MEAN? |
Like you my friend, I am confused as to what Mike is trying to convey here.
Certain pieces of legislation such as the issuance of a driver's licence are a "priviledge", but others, such as those dealing with discrimination are recognized "Rights".
Best we wait and see what Mike meant.
Ray |
Possibly Mike's saying that what "we" consider to be "rights" are determined by consensus, that "rights" are not universal, and that different societies might recognize different "rights" than "we" do... |
Could be, but considering that the discussion at hand dealt specifically with a decision rendered by the US Supreme Court, I had (Perhaps mistakenly) assumed that the comments were related to that decision.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/26/2013 10:21:31 PM · #6236 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Guess what folks! |
Sad ain't it? |
|
|
|
06/26/2013 10:49:37 PM · #6237 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mike:
you can argue equal rights all you want, but we dont have rights, we have privileges. |
What does this even MEAN? |
Like you my friend, I am confused as to what Mike is trying to convey here.
Certain pieces of legislation such as the issuance of a driver's licence are a "priviledge", but others, such as those dealing with discrimination are recognized "Rights".
Best we wait and see what Mike meant.
Ray |
Possibly Mike's saying that what "we" consider to be "rights" are determined by consensus, that "rights" are not universal, and that different societies might recognize different "rights" than "we" do... |
my comment was made in response to Shannon's to my original. Rights are not universal, they are dependent on where you live and how much the authority is willing to concede them. Its sad that certain groups need to go through persecution because they aren't the majority nor can they persuade someone in power to act there behalf. Gays finally outnumbered those who wish to keep the oppressed, make no mistake, if they didn't have influence they'd still be on unequal ground.
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Guess what folks! |
Sad ain't it? |
Kevin, go back under your rock. i heard enough garbage from religious folks today to make me thankful that a) i don't believe in God and b) if this intolerant god does in fact exist, i wont be wasting of my time here on earth worshiping him.
Message edited by author 2013-06-26 22:50:04. |
|
|
|
06/26/2013 11:01:03 PM · #6238 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Guess what folks! |
Sad ain't it? |
Well considering I'm a married gay man in the state of California, I can't say I agree.
Although your response makes me sad that you can't share in my hope.
|
|
|
|
06/27/2013 01:16:41 AM · #6239 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Gays finally outnumbered those who wish to keep the oppressed, make no mistake, if they didn't have influence they'd still be on unequal ground. |
Um, no. Gays are still very much a minority, and the court's earlier VRA decision contradicts your premise. |
|
|
|
06/27/2013 07:45:06 AM · #6240 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Guess what folks! |
Sad ain't it? |
Well considering I'm a married gay man in the state of California, I can't say I agree.
Although your response makes me sad that you can't share in my hope. |
How can you be? It won't be "legal" there for another 25 days... |
|
|
|
06/27/2013 07:47:08 AM · #6241 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
Gays finally outnumbered those who wish to keep the oppressed, make no mistake, if they didn't have influence they'd still be on unequal ground. |
Um, no. Gays are still very much a minority, and the court's earlier VRA decision contradicts your premise. |
Im not sure what we are arguing here, the important point is a minority group got equality. You seem to be arguing they deserved to get it because its what equality depends, im arguing that people dont get what they deserve, they only get what they want because they have influence.
Its a tangent that has no bearing, though, i'm not sure how we got off on it. |
|
|
|
06/27/2013 07:47:58 AM · #6242 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Kevin, go back under your rock. i heard enough garbage from religious folks today to make me thankful that a) i don't believe in God and b) if this intolerant god does in fact exist, i wont be wasting of my time here on earth worshiping him. |
Ah... the irony... the one living in darkness tells those living in the Light to go back under a rock.
Hilarity!
Again, this has never been about oppressing anyone, but insuring the rule of law is followed (the SC screwed up on this) and that equal rights for everyone, not special rights for a self selected group.
Alas, as this country continues to fall apart, this decision was to be expected.
Likewise, amnesty and open borders will follow next. No one cares about what is right anymore. This whole thread proves that. |
|
|
|
06/27/2013 07:50:39 AM · #6243 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
Gays finally outnumbered those who wish to keep the oppressed, make no mistake, if they didn't have influence they'd still be on unequal ground. |
Um, no. Gays are still very much a minority, and the court's earlier VRA decision contradicts your premise. |
Im not sure what we are arguing here, the important point is a minority group got equality. You seem to be arguing they deserved to get it because its what equality depends, im arguing that people dont get what they deserve, they only get what they want because they have influence.
Its a tangent that has no bearing, though, i'm not sure how we got off on it. |
What prevented them from being married before? Nothing. Except their own decision not to take part in marriages. Solely their choice, no oppression at all. Man can marry a woman. Gay man can marry a woman. They chose not to marry a woman. Pretty common sense.
Now they get a SPECIAL imagined right to do something and mislabel it marriage and the rest of the country (in due time) will have to also pretend it's a marriage, when in reality, it's not. It never will be. |
|
|
|
06/27/2013 08:01:39 AM · #6244 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
What prevented them from being married before? Nothing. Except their own decision not to take part in marriages. Solely their choice, no oppression at all. Man can marry a woman. Gay man can marry a woman. They chose not to marry a woman. Pretty common sense.
Now they get a SPECIAL imagined right to do something and mislabel it marriage and the rest of the country (in due time) will have to also pretend it's a marriage, when in reality, it's not. It never will be. |
you are acting as if marriage itself isn't an "imagined right", humans thought it up, just like every other right we feel we are entitled to.
as it tends to be argued, homosexuality isn't natural, so its only logical the those committing unnatural acts are allowed to partake in an unnatural ceremony and equally receive unnatural benefits. |
|
|
|
06/27/2013 10:47:15 AM · #6245 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by Mike:
Kevin, go back under your rock. i heard enough garbage from religious folks today to make me thankful that a) i don't believe in God and b) if this intolerant god does in fact exist, i wont be wasting of my time here on earth worshiping him. |
Ah... the irony... the one living in darkness tells those living in the Light to go back under a rock.
Hilarity!
Again, this has never been about oppressing anyone, but insuring the rule of law is followed (the SC screwed up on this) and that equal rights for everyone, not special rights for a self selected group.
|
Like the special rights that exist for straight people? Or white people?
That whole "special rights" thing is so 90's, dude. Get over it. |
|
|
|
06/27/2013 11:11:41 AM · #6246 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Ah... the irony... the one living in darkness tells those living in the Light to go back under a rock.
Hilarity!
|
oh the metaphorical Light and Dark, witty.
lets keep it going.
the problem with living in light is when its so bright you cant see anything but the light, at least living in the dark, your eyes adjust after a bit and you can make out your surroundings. |
|
|
|
06/27/2013 11:36:14 AM · #6247 |
Originally posted by Mike:
You seem to be arguing they deserved to get it because its what equality depends, im arguing that people dont get what they deserve, they only get what they want because they have influence. |
And your cynical premise is false. As an example, interracial marriage was banned in 16 states until the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional in 1967. This group was a considerably smaller minority than gays, and had no major influence, civil rights marches, or public support behind them. Only a third of Americans supported interracial marriage in 1986, and public support didn't reach a majority until 1994. The court ruled on the basis of equality alone. By 2011, 86% of Americans supported interracial marriage. It's no longer a big deal, and none of the dire warnings from bigots claiming moral or religious justifications came true. History repeats itself. |
|
|
|
06/27/2013 11:50:54 AM · #6248 |
that was a different scenario, two people were imprisoned and the SCOTUS ruled the law that imprisoned them was unconstitutional, thus setting off the chain of events to follow. The lawmakers didn't just wake up one and and realize equality didn't exist.
you could make the argument that there wasn't a organized movement against interracial marriage, any movement against would have no leg to stand on since racial equality had already been given. It's not like the gay marriage movement where the opponents kept clinging to religious beliefs, not to mention the political influence they held.
Message edited by author 2013-06-27 11:57:13. |
|
|
|
06/27/2013 12:18:09 PM · #6249 |
Oh hey klkitchens! Good to know I'm debating someone who doesn't understand the history he's debating, or has even read the thread they're commenting on.
Not suprising, but good to know. I'll make sure to explain things clearly for you.
How am I "non quotes" married? //pjratmk-ultra.tumblr.com/image/53955988796
Just like anyone else, I went to the courthouse, filled out a secular legal form, and had it signed by someone in authority. Then I had a ceremony, and voila! It was pretty simple, you know? These forms have the force of law, and have since the moment we signed them. You wouldn't be trying to deny me something I legally acquired as a tax-paying citizen, would you?
Maybe you'll "inform" yourself the next time you take a "position" on something you "know" about. I mean, it's not like the 18000 legally married gay couples in CA, and my membership in that group, has been mentioned a jillion times in this very thread or anything...
|
|
|
|
06/27/2013 12:25:06 PM · #6250 |
Hey other conservatives, might now be an opportunity to remind your would-be spokesman how gauche he's being?
By their fruits ye shall know them or something?
"the one living in darkness tells those living in the Light to go back under a rock"
Judge not? I don't think I've ever read anything quite as judgmental. "You can't tell me that, and I won't listen, because you're bad people."
Is this dude a 'bad christian' or what? Help me out here.
Message edited by author 2013-06-27 12:42:59. |
|
