Thoughts on Gay Marriage

[Hurricane]

I found this online and thought I'd share it.

Thoughts on Gay Marriage!

1.) Gay marriage is not natural, and as Americans, we always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and lyposuction.

2.) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3.) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behaviour. People may even wish to marry their own pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4.) Straight marriage has been atound a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5.) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6.) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7.) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8.) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.

9.) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10.) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms.Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans...

[Cam63]

Good post, Cyc'.

[Bombshell]

Heh.

Nice.

[Alan Lynch]

All excellent points. And quite funny.

[oddballuk]

Excellent!

[Flâneur]

While I've appreciated the wit of this thing in the years it's gone around, I've always found that this, like a lot of the other memes we use to easily cut into the arguments against same sex marriage, presupposes that a person is willing to see it from our side. I suppose it's really cynical of me, but I can just imagine a conservative deconstruction of this, heck, I know the exact arguments they'd respond with each point, and I know so many people would buy into it because they want to.


/sad face

[Ghost]

While I've appreciated the wit of this thing in the years it's gone around, I've always found that this, like a lot of the other memes we use to easily cut into the arguments against same sex marriage, presupposes that a person is willing to see it from our side. I suppose it's really cynical of me, but I can just imagine a conservative deconstruction of this, heck, I know the exact arguments they'd respond with each point, and I know so many people would buy into it because they want to.

Ah, but would it be funny?

The thing about wit is that it depowers serious arguments by making them silly, "blowing the colossal humbug to rags and atoms", as Mark Twain put it. Serious people tend to forget that, and thank God for that.

[Matt Algren]

Ah, but would it be funny?

The thing about wit is that it depowers serious arguments by making them silly, "blowing the colossal humbug to rags and atoms", as Mark Twain put it. Serious people tend to forget that, and thank God for that.
This depowering of which you speak hasn't seemed to happen in this case.

[4thHorseman]

These may be the greatest thoughts on this topic I've ever read.

[Samurai]

A very old collection of strawmen...

[Gumbo Maximillian]

A very old collection of strawmen...

Ah but are they wrong, that is the question....

[Matt Algren]

A very old collection of strawmen...

Well, obviously. I think you've missed the ironic intent of the original poster.

[Crowley]

A very old collection of strawmen...

You and Briareos have used them for quite a long time...

[MartinRedmond]

People may even wish to marry their own pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Wasn't this posted already? I think this is my favorite sarcastic line.

[Justin D.]

A very old collection of strawmen...

What strawmen?

[MartinRedmond]

100 americans marrying livestock is a very serious and real threat to American society.

[Sally Sensational]

100 americans marrying livestock is a very serious and real threat to American society.

Depends on which state they're from!

<rimshot>

[Spike-X]

What strawmen?
I think That One meant to say a tearing down of the strawmen he and other bigot-apologists like him are always using to desperately try and prop up their flimsy, pathetic excuses for arguments.

[David Wharton]

I think That One meant to say a tearing down of the strawmen he and other bigot-apologists like him are always using to desperately try and prop up their flimsy, pathetic excuses for arguments.

The simple facts are that US society isn't ready for gay marriage yet. If they weren't prop 8 and its brothers wouldn't have passed in November. Attitudes will and are changing but it is no surprise that a country as religeous as the US has problems with gay marriage.

I understand and comprehend the conservatives arguements and I don't agree with them, but enough people do and are willing to vote to remove gay marriage from the statute books.

You may not agree with prohibition of same sex marriage but the democratic process has to run its course and it will and attitudes and laws will change. Just let the system do its work, fight for what you believe in, just don't belittle those who have different views to you. In the long run you are going to win so at least do it with dignity

[PatrickG]

100 americans marrying livestock is a very serious and real threat to American society.

Yeah, keep saying that when their hybrid billy goat-human offspring takes your daughter to prom.

[Matt Algren]

The simple facts are that US society isn't ready for gay marriage yet. If they weren't prop 8 and its brothers wouldn't have passed in November. Attitudes will and are changing but it is no surprise that a country as religeous as the US has problems with gay marriage.

I understand and comprehend the conservatives arguements and I don't agree with them, but enough people do and are willing to vote to remove gay marriage from the statute books.

You may not agree with prohibition of same sex marriage but the democratic process has to run its course and it will and attitudes and laws will change. Just let the system do its work, fight for what you believe in, just don't belittle those who have different views to you. In the long run you are going to win so at least do it with dignity
No.

The conservative arguments are either nonsense, unconstitutional, or bigoted. Sometimes all three. These aren't simply "different views", they're discrimination, and last I looked it was pretty un-American to accept a vote for discrimination.

This isn't about a "democratic process", it's about civil rights. And as long as people are being injured (psychologically, financially, whatever), I'm not going to treat this like anything but what it is: a boil on the bum of world history. Time to lance it and get started with the healing.

[Spike-X]

The simple facts are that US society isn't ready for gay marriage yet. If they weren't prop 8 and its brothers wouldn't have passed in November. Attitudes will and are changing but it is no surprise that a country as religeous as the US has problems with gay marriage.

I don't give a flying fuck what society is "ready for".

Society wasn't ready to abolish slavery. Society wasn't ready to give women the vote. Society wasn't ready to treat black people as equal under the law. Society wasn't ready to allow mixed-race marriage. All these things had to be forced through against the will of the majority.

If we waited for society to be ready, black people would still be riding up the back of the bus. If they were even allowed on it in the first place.

Equality shouldn't have to wait for the bigots to change their minds. Because they usually don't.

[Hurricane]

I don't give a flying fuck what society is "ready for".

Society wasn't ready to abolish slavery. Society wasn't ready to give women the vote. Society wasn't ready to treat black people as equal under the law. Society wasn't ready to allow mixed-race marriage. All these things had to be forced through against the will of the majority.

If we waited for society to be ready, black people would still be riding up the back of the bus. If they were even allowed on it in the first place.

Equality shouldn't have to wait for the bigots to change their minds. Because they usually don't.

Right on. This post and the one before it are pretty much how I feel about the issue.

[David Wharton]

No.

The conservative arguments are either nonsense, unconstitutional, or bigoted. Sometimes all three. These aren't simply "different views", they're discrimination, and last I looked it was pretty un-American to accept a vote for discrimination.

This isn't about a "democratic process", it's about civil rights. And as long as people are being injured (psychologically, financially, whatever), I'm not going to treat this like anything but what it is: a boil on the bum of world history. Time to lance it and get started with the healing.

No they are not they are based on religious convictions which form the whole basis of western society. Abide by the process let it work and then you will have both the moral high ground and win, probably within the next 20 years as the WWII generation dies. A nasty slugging match does nothing for either side and if anything drags you down to their level.

You will win and you know that so just let things take their course. By all means fight, argue and oppose those that want to prohibit same sex marriage, celebrate your wins but be dignified when you lose. They will lose, just as those who wanted to keep segregation in the south did. Fight long and hard, just don't belittle those that you can't understand, because it demeans you and they are just not worth it.

[Mermaid]

I don't give a flying fuck what society is "ready for".

Society wasn't ready to abolish slavery. Society wasn't ready to give women the vote. Society wasn't ready to treat black people as equal under the law. Society wasn't ready to allow mixed-race marriage. All these things had to be forced through against the will of the majority.

If we waited for society to be ready, black people would still be riding up the back of the bus. If they were even allowed on it in the first place.

Equality shouldn't have to wait for the bigots to change their minds. Because they usually don't.

Totally agree, well put.

[David Wharton]

I don't give a flying fuck what society is "ready for".

Society wasn't ready to abolish slavery. Society wasn't ready to give women the vote. Society wasn't ready to treat black people as equal under the law. Society wasn't ready to allow mixed-race marriage. All these things had to be forced through against the will of the majority.

If we waited for society to be ready, black people would still be riding up the back of the bus. If they were even allowed on it in the first place.

Equality shouldn't have to wait for the bigots to change their minds. Because they usually don't.

Society was ready for all of those things to change, otherwise they wouldn't have happened. The system worked well enough for those changes to become law.

Enough of a majority wanted prop 8 and their ilk so they passed. Because you don't like it doesn't, does that make their democratic rights invalid?

You are going to win, so fight within the system and celebrate your wins mourn your losses and get on with winning. Belittling your opponents plays right into their hands.

[Spike-X]

Abide by the process let it work and then you will have both the moral high ground and win, probably within the next 20 years...

Twenty years? Fuck that shit.

People are being discriminated against today. Couples are being forcibly divorced today. Children are being deprived of secure, caring homes today. Go tell them they have to wait twenty years so as to avoid offending a bunch of old bigots.

Fuck. That. Shit.

[Matt Algren]

No they are not they are based on religious convictions which form the whole basis of western society. Abide by the process let it work and then you will have both the moral high ground and win, probably within the next 20 years as the WWII generation dies. A nasty slugging match does nothing for either side and if anything drags you down to their level.

You will win and you know that so just let things take their course. By all means fight, argue and oppose those that want to prohibit same sex marriage, celebrate your wins but be dignified when you lose. They will lose, just as those who wanted to keep segregation in the south did. Fight long and hard, just don't belittle those that you can't understand, because it demeans you and they are just not worth it.
They are nonsense, unconstitutional, and bigoted arguments served on a platter of religious dogma that shouldn't be part of the democratic process. We're not asking for enforcement of religious marriage. We're asking for enforcement of the right to marry for purposes of the state. Religion is not part of this by constitutional law.

And as a Christian, I find the use of religion to scare people into voting for discrimination repugnant.

I'll say it again. People are being injured. That is not acceptable. That cannot stand. That must be treated as nothing less than what it is: state-sponsored bigotry.

[thebhamgunslinger]

When it comes to gay marriage, my thinking is like this: I'm not for it personally, but I'm not going to riot in the streets if it happens. Because at the end of the day, it really doesn't affect or concern me.

At the end of the day, if you're gay, you're going to be gay whether or not you can legally marry, so being against you marrying isn't going to change anything.

Does that make sense?

[Spike-X]

You are going to win, so fight within the system and celebrate your wins mourn your losses and get on with winning. Belittling your opponents plays right into their hands.

Sitting back and politely asking bigots for something that every human being should be entitled to (equal treatment under the law) is not 'fighting within the system'. It's being a doormat.

[Spike-X]

When it comes to gay marriage, my thinking is like this: I'm not for it personally, but I'm not going to riot in the streets if it happens. Because at the end of the day, it really doesn't affect or concern me.

At the end of the day, if you're gay, you're going to be gay whether or not you can legally marry, so being against you marrying isn't going to change anything.

Does that make sense?
If more conservatives thought like you on this issue, we wouldn't keep having to have this argument.


Nobody's asking the bigots to come to the weddings and throw rice. But trying to stop them from happening at all simply because they personally disapprove is just plain mean-spirited.

[Matt Algren]

Society was ready for all of those things to change, otherwise they wouldn't have happened. The system worked well enough for those changes to become law.
No it didn't. All those things were changed not by legislation or popular vote, but by judicial orders based on sound constitutional law.

Enough of a majority wanted prop 8 and their ilk so they passed. Because you don't like it doesn't, does that make their democratic rights invalid?You don't get to vote for the right to discriminate against a minority population. That's just not how democracy works.
You are going to win, so fight within the system and celebrate your wins mourn your losses and get on with winning. Belittling your opponents plays right into their hands.
They are who they are, and their views are their views. I belittle no one, but neither do I embiggen them.




Yes, I just used a Simpsons reference to argue civil rights. Represent.

[Paul McEnery]

Society was ready for all of those things to change, otherwise they wouldn't have happened. .

*bzzzzt*

Wrong on all counts. Society changed because the law changed.

[Paul McEnery]

No it didn't. All those things were changed not by legislation or popular vote, but by judicial orders based on sound constitutional law.
.

Here's your coke.













Don't snort it off a hooker's cock, now!

[David Wharton]

Twenty years? Fuck that shit.

People are being discriminated against today. Couples are being forcibly divorced today. Children are being deprived of secure, caring homes today. Go tell them they have to wait twenty years so as to avoid offending a bunch of old bigots.

Fuck. That. Shit.

And what you would deny people their democratic right to a referendum on the issue? Or are only referendums that agree with your views allowed?

I can understand your frustration with the situation. I personally support gay marriage, but I support democracy more. Just because you don't agree with it are you going to repeal a democratic vote, because to me that sounds like dictatorship.

[Paul McEnery]

And what you would deny people their democratic right to a referendum on the issue? Or are only referendums that agree with your views allowed?

I can understand your frustration with the situation. I personally support gay marriage, but I support democracy more. Just because you don't agree with it are you going to repeal a democratic vote, because to me that sounds like dictatorship.

I vote you should have to stand in the corner with your hands on your head for all eternity. Who's with me?

[Spike-X]

And what you would deny people their democratic right to a referendum on the issue?

On this issue? Damn right I would.

Equal rights shouldn't be up for a vote. People should not have the opportunity to deprive their fellow human beings of equal treatment under the law.

[David Wharton]

*bzzzzt*

Wrong on all counts. Society changed because the law changed.

Wrong, if society wasn't ready for the changes they would have been struck off the legislation book. Society shapes lawmakers and politicians not the other way around and politicians wouldn't vote for an unpopular law.

[Paul McEnery]

Wrong, if society wasn't ready for the changes they would have been struck off the legislation book. Society shapes lawmakers and politicians not the other way around and politicians wouldn't vote for an unpopular law.

Wrong again. 100% wrong. In absolutely every respect.

[David Wharton]

On this issue? Damn right I would.

Equal rights shouldn't be up for a vote. People should not have the opportunity to deprive their fellow human beings of equal treatment under the law.

So let me get this right, the system is fine when it works in your favour, but wrong when it doesn't. Come off it that is plain and simple hypocracy.

[Paul McEnery]

So let me get this right, the system is fine when it works in your favour, but wrong when it doesn't. Come off it that is plain and simple hypocracy.

No, that's what we call constitutional democracy, which guarantees human rights above democratic bigotry.

[David Wharton]

Wrong again. 100% wrong. In absolutely every respect.

Chicken, Egg. We are not going to agree, we just support two differing political philosophies. I'm a humanist, you're a structuralist.

[Spike-X]

So let me get this right, the system is fine when it works in your favour, but wrong when it doesn't. Come off it that is plain and simple hypocracy.
The system is fine when it works in favour of people being treated equally.

The system is wrong when it works against people being treated equally.


This really isn't hard to figure out. Treating people as equals is good. *smiley face* Not treating people as equals is bad. *sad face*

I really can't make it any simpler than that.

[David Wharton]

No, that's what we call constitutional democracy, which guarantees human rights above democratic bigotry.

Well that is exactly what I'm defending. The right to vote which is the keystone of a democracy. I just view it differently to you.

[Paul McEnery]

Chicken, Egg. We are not going to agree, we just support two differing political philosophies. I'm a humanist, you're a structuralist.

Then you're going to stay wrong. Human rights are non-negotiable, and I certainly don't have any time for anyone who thinks we can vote them away if you can muster enough bigots for your side.

Now don't make me Godwin your ass.

[Spike-X]

Well that is exactly what I'm defending. The right to vote which is the keystone of a democracy. I just view it differently to you.
Yes. You seem to think people have the 'right' to vote against other human beings being treated equally. You are wrong.

[David Wharton]

The system is fine when it works in favour of people being treated equally.

The system is wrong when it works against people being treated equally.


This really isn't hard to figure out. Treating people as equals is good. *smiley face* Not treating people as equals is bad. *sad face*

I really can't make it any simpler than that.

But a referendum is purest test of the will of the electorate. If the majority don't want a law and vote so in a democratic referendum, then it is right that it is repealed.

Democracy is the best system we have, while it sucks when it doesn't work in your favour, it gets it right more often than not.

I believe in the system, not just when it works in my favour.

[David Wharton]

Yes. You seem to think people have the 'right' to vote against other human beings being treated equally. You are wrong.

In the US system they do, otherwise prop 8 wouldn't have passed. Quid pro quo.

[Paul McEnery]

In the US system they do, otherwise prop 8 wouldn't have passed. Quid pro quo.

No they don't. And it's going to be struck down.

[Spike-X]

But a referendum is purest test of the will of the electorate. If the majority don't want a law and vote so in a democratic referendum, then it is right that it is repealed.

Democracy is the best system we have, while it sucks when it doesn't work in your favour, it gets it right more often than not.

I believe in the system, not just when it works in my favour.
I really can't see what more I can add to this, above and beyond what I've already said, and which apparently has gone in one (metaphorical) ear and out the other.

'Bye now.

[David Wharton]

No they don't. And it's going to be struck down.

Are you sure in The Roberts court?

[Hurricane]

Most people's complaints about gay marriage have to do with religion (at least it seems that way to me). It's against their religion so they think it's wrong and should be banned.

Not everyone has the same religious beliefs. Why should EVERYONE be held to the religious beliefs of one group of people? Maybe in my religion, being gay and marrying other men is totally cool. Now, you're not only discriminating against gays, but you're also discriminating against my religion.

[PatrickG]

Yes. You seem to think people have the 'right' to vote against other human beings being treated equally. You are wrong.

I support gay marriage...

But if equality is non-negotiable then what you're setting up is the idea that people as autonomous entities are more important than ideas and the incubation, argument and development thereof.

The problem there is that no government is any more tangible than an idea. Law is just neuro-linguistic programming and equality has to exist in terms of argumentation and a marketplace system, an adversarial, hostile, Socratic, aggressive idea processing machine first.

If people can come first, we don't need government at all in any case. But if rights must be mandated then they aren't rights and people don't come first and it's just warring fascist partisans -- which is close to how I see things, I guess.

[Paul McEnery]

Are you sure in The Roberts court?

It's not the Roberts court it's going up to, is it. And our AG isn't backing it. So yeah, I think it'll be shot down in the California Supreme Court.

[David Wharton]

It's not the Roberts court it's going up to, is it. And our AG isn't backing it. So yeah, I think it'll be shot down in the California Supreme Court.

From where it will be appealed the Roberts court. You know that.

[Paul McEnery]

From where it will be appealed the Roberts court. You know that.

It might be. I don't know that. I don't know that they'll agree to hear it, either.

And it doesn't matter anyway. The point is, it ain't right.

[David Wharton]

It might be. I don't know that. I don't know that they'll agree to hear it, either.

And it doesn't matter anyway. The point is, it ain't right.

I agree it isn't right. But I support the system and belive that it will change, as hard as it is in the short term, you are going to win. Just not as quickly as you would like.

[Reverend Smooth]

If people can come first, we don't need government at all in any case. But if rights must be mandated then they aren't rights and people don't come first and it's just warring fascist partisans -- which is close to how I see things, I guess.I may be misreading this, but I think it's unfair to label folks who want to be, or who want friends to be, or even just want others to be, able to marry another consenting adult, partisan or fascist.

This shouldn't even be a political issue at all. It unfortunately has to be because certain folks are enshrining discrimination into law based upon a rigid religious interpretation that not even their own religions can agree on.

But to just say, 'it's partisan politics' is unfair. People are just trying to get married so they can adopt each others' kids, visit their loved ones' funerals or see them in the hospitals, offer a more stable household, share insurance policies so their loved ones (or their loved ones' kids) aren't forced to go without healthcare, and be on the same financial footing as everyone else.

'But they're trying to force their views on others!' No, it has nothing to do with others. Let them get married and leave them in peace. People's religion should end where others' rights (or religion) begin.

[Reverend Smooth]

I agree it isn't right. But I support the system and belive that it will change, as hard as it is in the short term, you are going to win. Just not as quickly as you would like.It's not about 'winning'. Like I said above:
People are just trying to get married so they can adopt each others' kids, visit their loved ones' funerals or see them in the hospitals, offer a more stable household, share insurance policies so their loved ones (or their loved ones' kids) aren't forced to go without healthcare, and be on the same financial footing as everyone else.

That's what it's about.

[David Wharton]

Anyways its late here and I'm off to bed, I'll pick this thread up in the morning.

[Lester C.]

I typed this before and it wasn't popular but I'll type it again because I think I'm right. Gay activists need to realize that the tools and strategies used by other minorities aren't going to work for them as they been at it for decades now and things have only progressively gotten worse in all that time. I'm not smart enough to know what they should do, but am smart enough to know that the whole awareness campaign is a failure. It's long past time that people went back to the drawing board.

[Reverend Smooth]

I'm a minority and I'm fine with the comparisons.

[Pro]

I personally support gay marriage, but I support democracy more.

No such thing as democracy without equal rights.

[Kalen O.]

Again. Bottom line. Removing all thoughts, opinions and biases on the matter, it boils down to this:

Majority given the capacity to cast a vote that directly affects the day to day living of one minority, and one minority ONLY.

Minority given the capacity to cast a vote to defend the right which directly affects their day to day living, but has no such affect on the lives of the majority.

A =/= B.

NOT EQUAL.

Ergo, democracy not working right.

[Tommy]

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816.

"It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part."-- James Maddison

"the majority not only makes the laws, but can break them as well."--Alexis de Tocqueville

“Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.” -- Larry Flint

Wrong, if society wasn't ready for the changes they would have been struck off the legislation book. Society shapes lawmakers and politicians not the other way around and politicians wouldn't vote for an unpopular law.

That's an ass backwards position. Iowa was desegregated in 1875 due to a court case. In 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson the Supreme Court said segregation was okay as long as it was, "separate, but equal." It wasn't until 1954 in Brown v. the Board of Education that integration was required.

Obviously society wasn't "ready" for the changes considering that it would be seventy-five years for the national courts to catch up with Iowa. And, had Iowa a citizen's constitutional referendum I'm fairly certain that segregation would have entered into the constitution.

However, I would really like to see you go back and explain to the plaintiffs in that court case that they should patiently take the discrimination for another seventy-five years.

And finally look up "Southern Strategy," clearly society was not ready for desegregation.

just don't belittle those who have different views to you.

Some different views deserve to be belittled. Such as the idea people being discriminated against should simply take it.

[Spike-X]

if society wasn't ready for the changes they would have been struck off the legislation book.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/Spike-X/little_rock_desegregation_1957.jpg

So this is what society being ready for change looks like, is it?

[Stressfactor]

I typed this before and it wasn't popular but I'll type it again because I think I'm right. Gay activists need to realize that the tools and strategies used by other minorities aren't going to work for them as they been at it for decades now and things have only progressively gotten worse in all that time. I'm not smart enough to know what they should do, but am smart enough to know that the whole awareness campaign is a failure. It's long past time that people went back to the drawing board.

Gonna disagree. Decades ago far more numbers of gays and lesbians were afraid and even ashamed to openly live their lifestyle. Many married just to 'fit in' or in some bizarre hope that they could 'cure' something that was 'wrong' with them.

Decades ago, employers could fire someone for being gay. Forget about gays in the military, homosexuals couldn't serve in government in ANY capacity -- now gays and lesbians have been and continue to be mayors and congresspeople.

Decades ago derrogatory terms for homosexuals were considered the norm, not 'hate speech'.

Decades ago there were NO positive portrayals of homosexuals in movies or on TV -- hell, there was little to no portrayal of homosexuals in popular cuture PERIOD.

Decades ago schools did not teach that homosexuals were also sent to the death camps in Germany during WW II.

Decades ago schools did not teach that famous people -- world leaders, politicans, peacemakers, artists, composers, dancers, etc. were gay when they were.

Change HAS come, change WILL come... It is the PACE of change that frustrates.


ETA: The Civil Rights movement did NOT begin in the 1960's. Go back and look at your history. They may not have CALLED it the Civil Rights movment UNTIL the 1960's but African-Americans had to start fighting for their rights the day after the Civil War ended. Change for them didn't all come in one or two decades. It didn't even come in one generation. Over 100 years later they are STILL fighting.

Don't say that just because the Gay Rights movement hasn't seen sweeping changes in the few decades its been visibly active it hasn't made any advancement and won't make any.

[beetlebum]

I'm gonna have to agree with Stressfactor on this.

And Lester: You may not have intended this, but your post is a slap in the face to the Freedom Riders who used to ride into the South to register voters. It's a slap in the face to men like Mario Savio, who risked being expelled from Berkeley, just so his fellow students could have the right to assemble and spontaneously demonstrate, without having to seek someone else's permission beforehand. It also diminishes the accomplishments of the Suffragettes who struggled so I could have the rights I partake in today. It diminishes their sacrifices, and your statement also pragmatically imparts (again, this may not be your intent) that those who died for what they believe in were just fools.

While it's true that more was accomplished by court rulings and by federal legislation, the point is, those who were in power were taking the man on the streets voice into consideration, though that consideration may have not been that emergent, or an occurent thought as they were making their decisions.

In short: I completely disagree with you on this.

[Chris Hansbrough]

What strawmen?

Gay marriage would harm traditional marriage

[suttercain]

Gay marriage is all good in my book.

[ShadowCorsair]

I think david has a decent idea but he's attributing it to the wrong cause. It makes sense to call someone on bigoted actions or thoughts when they act on them, however attacking them is only partially likely to make them change their opinion about gay marriage. Engaging them in conversation might help, not necessarily directly from a gay person because they might be uncomfortable or unable to deal with that, but when a bigoted person becomes engaged in a conversation about rights and equality from someone they trust and care about and the society continues to change and become more accepting the bigot will have no choice but to accept and change their views and beliefs.

Now David believes that this means we shouldn't be demeaning those who are bigoted, and on some level I think I agree, when a gay person expresses hate to someone simply because they are religious I find it just as offensive as if that religious person expressed hate against someone who was gay. We should all learn to accept each other's differances and try to stop from going to that level, where we nearly mirror that which we fight so hard against.

HOWEVER, how do you get the trusted friends and community and society beliefs to change, part of it is education, but some of it does involve showing that level of emotion, that you are a human being and that this bigot has fundamentally disregarded that, this is one way to change the views of someone who isn't aware of the pain they are causing (seriously while some are aware, many are not).

Personal Story: I was in a game store when I was 13 playing magic: the gathering, someone did a combo against me that I regarded as cheap and I yelled in frustration "That is SO GAY". immediatley someone (a stranger I have no idea who he is/was) turnned around told to learn to be respectful and not to use such vile language, and that there's nothing wrong with being gay. I'd say it changed my life, seeing his emotion and pain, and realizing the hurt I was causing has made me an advocate for Gay rights and extremely proud of my state (connecticut) and being involved with the fight for glbtqia rights. In addition I've learned to speak up to family members and those around me about their insensitivity and bigotedness, even strangers. However if that man had simply screamed at me and called me a right-wing nut filled with hate and bigotedness I wonder if the same change would of occurred or if I would have gotten an impression of gay people as being oversensitive assholes...hopefully not. But it's that issue that I think David is trying to talk about. Some of you may disagree and feel you have every right to attack those who attack first or that those who hold these negative opinions aren't worthy of respect. I however think there are benefits of respecting people for their humanity even if you don't respect their actions or beliefs, mainly because my experience of someone who took the time to explain his strife to me (while still reprimanding and condeming my actions) allowed me to become an agent of change and I belief payed off in dividends in a way that the words: Fuck off you bigoted asshole, probably would not have.

[ShadowCorsair]

While writing that response I somewhat lost track of my train of thought and am not sure what I think :/. Obviously there's a differance between an ignorant 13 year old and a hate-filled bigoted 55 year old (But ya know what, Maybe there isn't).

[Spike-X]

Yeah there is.

The 55-year-old is old enough to bloody well know better.

[Cam63]

I don't give a flying fuck what society is "ready for".

Society wasn't ready to abolish slavery. Society wasn't ready to give women the vote. Society wasn't ready to treat black people as equal under the law. Society wasn't ready to allow mixed-race marriage. All these things had to be forced through against the will of the majority.

If we waited for society to be ready, black people would still be riding up the back of the bus. If they were even allowed on it in the first place.

Equality shouldn't have to wait for the bigots to change their minds. Because they usually don't.

*Puts down beer to applaud*

[Cam63]

Twenty years? Fuck that shit.

People are being discriminated against today. Couples are being forcibly divorced today. Children are being deprived of secure, caring homes today. Go tell them they have to wait twenty years so as to avoid offending a bunch of old bigots.

Fuck. That. Shit.

You are The Man, Spike.

Hoo-rah.

[Cam63]

When it comes to gay marriage, my thinking is like this: I'm not for it personally, but I'm not going to riot in the streets if it happens. Because at the end of the day, it really doesn't affect or concern me.

At the end of the day, if you're gay, you're going to be gay whether or not you can legally marry, so being against you marrying isn't going to change anything.

Does that make sense?

Yes........

[Cam63]

And what you would deny people their democratic right to a referendum on the issue? Or are only referendums that agree with your views allowed?

I can understand your frustration with the situation. I personally support gay marriage, but I support democracy more. Just because you don't agree with it are you going to repeal a democratic vote, because to me that sounds like dictatorship.

Basic human rights don't need a fucking referendum, Dave.

[Samurai]

Basic human rights don't need a fucking referendum, Dave.

That argument only works if people marrying others of the same sex is now a "basic human right". It isn't. So it doesn't.

[Larime]

That argument only works if people marrying others of the same sex is now a "basic human right". It isn't. So it doesn't.

The courts decided decades ago that people marrying others of different races is a basic human right. Marriage is, therefore, a basic human right.

[Cam63]

That argument only works if people marrying others of the same sex is now a "basic human right". It isn't. So it doesn't.

You're wrong.

[Tommy]

That argument only works if people marrying others of the same sex is now a "basic human right". It isn't. So it doesn't.

Massive legal precedence disagrees with you.

The courts decided decades ago that people marrying others of different races is a basic human right. Marriage is, therefore, a basic human right.

That's just one example. Another is the supreme court ruling on Turner v. Safley which struck down laws requiring permission for prisoners to get married.

[Cam63]

Sam don't roll that way.

[David Wharton]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/Spike-X/little_rock_desegregation_1957.jpg

So this is what society being ready for change looks like, is it?

No that is the minority being more vocal than the majority.

Yes the South wasn't ready for change, the North however was and did change, the majority of people were in the North, thus the law changed. Ergo Society changes laws, laws don't change society

[Tommy]

No that is the minority being more vocal than the majority.

Yes the South wasn't ready for change, the North however was and did change, the majority of people were in the North, thus the law changed. Ergo Society changes laws, laws don't change society

That's an assbackwards colonialist view of what happened. And excessively wrong; Brown v. Board of Education had nothing to do with how many people were pro or con segregation and everything to do with discrimination and civil rights.

[Spike-X]

Society changes laws, laws don't change society

You are fractally wrong on this issue.

"Fractal Wrongness: The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview."

[David Wharton]

Again. Bottom line. Removing all thoughts, opinions and biases on the matter, it boils down to this:

Majority given the capacity to cast a vote that directly affects the day to day living of one minority, and one minority ONLY.

Minority given the capacity to cast a vote to defend the right which directly affects their day to day living, but has no such affect on the lives of the majority.

A =/= B.

NOT EQUAL.

Ergo, democracy not working right.

True but you have work within the system to effect change. Sometimes the system doesn't work the way that you want it to, but you have to abide by the due process. Democracy is imperfect, especially when dealing with contentious and emotional issues, but it is the best system we have. It is also an alterable system, it just takes time for it to adapt to a changing world. I know that it is harsh on those who are suffering at the moment, but gay marriage needs to go through this process to achieve legitimacy.

The process creates human rights not the other way around people.

[David Wharton]

That's an assbackwards colonialist view of what happened. And excessively wrong; Brown v. Board of Education had nothing to do with how many people were pro or con segregation and everything to do with discrimination and civil rights.

Yet if a sizable majority opposed it the constitution would have been changed. There wasn't the will for that in society so it wasn't

[David Wharton]

Basic human rights don't need a fucking referendum, Dave.

The US democratic system says they are, so they are. I don't make the world I just deal in the reality of it.

[Larime]

Yet if a sizable majority opposed it the constitution would have been changed. There wasn't the will for that in society so it wasn't

Right. And then the courts - The Law - stepped up and said society was wrong. The Law made society change.

[David Wharton]

You are fractally wrong on this issue.

"Fractal Wrongness: The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview."

The thing is I believe that you are at the Factal Wrong end with your arguement. Chicken, Egg. Does the system create the rights or does the rights create the system.

I fundamentally believe that the system creates rights. Human rights are only as valid as the government that imposes them. If they were inalienable places like, China, Zimbabwe, Iran, Russia and their Ilk would support them.

[Spike-X]

The thing is I believe that you are at the Factal Wrong end with your arguement.

"I know you are, but what am I?"

Well shit, you've convinced me.


I fundamentally believe that the system creates rights. Human rights are only as valid as the government that imposes them. If they were inalienable places like, China, Zimbabwe, Iran, Russia and their Ilk would support them.

Rights are rights. True, there are some governments that choose not to recognise certain human rights. That's why we call these things Human Rights Violations.

[David Wharton]

Right. And then the courts - The Law - stepped up and said society was wrong. The Law made society change.

Wrong because the majority of society was ready or at least about ambivilant for the change. Otherwise the democrats wouldn't have been in position to pass the desegregation laws in the first place.

[David Wharton]

"I know you are, but what am I?"

Well shit, you've convinced me.



Rights are rights. True, there are some governments that choose not to recognise certain human rights. That's why we call these things Human Rights Violations.

No I don't expect to convince you, I just want to say I don't agree with what I believe is your ass-backwards view of history.

Rights are only as valid as the system which enforces them. In order for rights to exist they have to be recognised by the government and in law, if they are not they are ideas and ideals not rights.

That is the brutal reality of the world in which we live. Human rights are not inalienable, the ideas behind them are, but they themselves are not.

[Tommy]

Yet if a sizable majority opposed it the constitution would have been changed. There wasn't the will for that in society so it wasn't

No, if two thirds of the House of Representatives and two thirds of the Senate have to pass the amendment, and then three fourths of the states have to ratify it.

That extremely stringent process guarantees that most amendments have almost universal appeal, and also at no point does it come down to a direct vote.

[Tommy]

Wrong because the majority of society was ready or at least about ambivilant for the change. Otherwise the democrats wouldn't have been in position to pass the desegregation laws in the first place.

Except they didn't, it was decided in the courts. And as I pointed out, the amendment process is extremely difficult, beyond almost any other super majority requirements.

[Spike-X]

Human rights are not inalienable

Really? This doesn't ring a bell at all?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

[David Wharton]

Really? This doesn't ring a bell at all?


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

But they are not. Otherwise the whole world would have the same rights. That is why I chose "unalienable" as a word, because in reality they aren't. The system creates the rights, the rights don't create the system.

[Spike-X]

But they are not.

So you're disagreeing with the founding fathers of your country whose democracy you've just spent the last however-many hours defending?

The mind. Fucking. Boggles.

The system creates the rights, the rights don't create the system.

B...but...the entire system of government in your country was created because of the idea of inalienable rights!!!

[David Wharton]

So you're disagreeing with the founding fathers of your country whose democracy you've just spent the last however-many hours defending?

The mind. Fucking. Boggles.



B...but...the entire system of government in your country was created because of the idea of inalienable rights!!!

You are overlooking one teeny tiny problem. Its not my country. LOL.

[Charles RB]

When before did the US put a minority group's rights up to a popular vote, other than with Prop8 and its bretheren?

Because I can't think of another example. If there isn't one, that'd make voting on whether a group should have rights an abnormality in American politics.

Don't recall Spain, Canada, South Africa etc putting same-sex marriage to popular vote when it was legalised there either, and I know we didn't put the Civil Partnership Act up to popular vote.

[Spike-X]

You are overlooking one teeny tiny problem. Its not my country. LOL.
Well, that certainly explains your complete and utter ignorance about the way their country is supposed to work, then.

[David Wharton]

When before did the US put a minority group's rights up to a popular vote, other than with Prop8 and its bretheren?

Because I can't think of another example. If there isn't one, that'd make voting on whether a group should have rights an abnormality in American politics.

Don't recall Spain, Canada, South Africa etc putting same-sex marriage to popular vote when it was legalised there either, and I know we didn't put the Civil Partnership Act up to popular vote.

I know we didn't but then again we don't have mechanisms within our government that allow us to call for referendums on such issues. The US does, so it did and democracy spoke.

[David Wharton]

Well, that certainly explains your complete and utter ignorance about the way their country is supposed to work, then.

Wrong ex-politics student, I just have a structualist point of view. I hold democratic process above human rights, because it is the democratic process that creates and legitimises the rights.

[Spike-X]

I know we didn't but then again we don't have mechanisms within our government that allow us to call for referendums on such issues. The US does, so it did and democracy spoke.
Yet you still completely miss the point.

It is not the role of democracy to decide who gets to be treated equally and who doesn't.

[Tommy]

I know we didn't but then again we don't have mechanisms within our government that allow us to call for referendums on such issues. The US does, so it did and democracy spoke.

And hopefully the courts will speak and throw it out.

It is not the role of democracy to decide who gets to be treated equally and who doesn't.

Someone should probably read Animal Farm...

[Spike-X]

Wrong ex-politics student

Oh look, something else you're wrong about.

[David Wharton]

Oh look, something else you're wrong about.

Why exactly? Just curious.

[Spike-X]

Why exactly? Just curious.
Umm...because I'm not an ex-politics student?

[Larime]

Wrong because the majority of society was ready or at least about ambivilant for the change. Otherwise the democrats wouldn't have been in position to pass the desegregation laws in the first place.

Wrong.

When the Supreme Court determined that bi-racial couples had a right to marry, all polls showed the rather sizable majority opposed the idea. In fact, it wasn't until Clinton's era that polls finally showed a majority of Americans favored bi-racial marriage.

That is an indisputable fact.

Your argument that if they really opposed it, they'd have gone the Amendment route is riddled with holes. Such as:

The media portrayed those opposed to equal rights as being bigots. Most people didn't want to be identified as a bigot.

The Amendment process is not a simple majority vote. It requires a fuckload of hoops to jump through and a super-majority backing, to - in the words of my poli-sci professor - protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The founders specifically did not want a bunch of dipshits running roughshod over everyone else.

So no. You are factually wrong.

You. Are. Factually. Wrong.

The law told society to go fuck itself, and society only got over it in the 90's.

[Tommy]

The law told society to go fuck itself, and society only got over it in the 90's.

And can I just point out that if interracial marriage was illegal, then there wouldn't be interracial marriages to change people's minds on the subject of interracial marriages.

[Charles RB]

I know we didn't but then again we don't have mechanisms within our government that allow us to call for referendums on such issues. The US does, so it did

Except AFAIK they usually haven't had referendums on minority group rights. And I don't think all six of the countries with same-sex marriage lack mechanisms for referendums, yet AFAIK they didn't have them.

Also, let's be honest, allowing the majority to decide if the minority should have rights isn't so much democracy as tyranny - it's just legitimising the tyranny as "will of the people" so we can ignore it.

History also shows that the majority becomes more favourable towards minority and civil rights after they've been legalised and everyone can see they're no big deal.

[David Wharton]

And hopefully the courts will speak and throw it out.



Someone should probably read Animal Farm...

I have done. That was an attack on Soviet Russia and its inner corruption. I understand the point you are trying to make, but there was no democracy there just an elite handing down declarations from up high.

Now as I understand it there is specific passage about gay marriage in the US constitution, as such by the US system it is open debate and legislation. I believe in the long term gay marriage will be recognised but the system has work its course. Democracy allowed for a referendum, which led to prop 8 and it passed. Now the courts could and in Cal almost certainly will overturn prop 8, if so fine, that is how the US system works.

The democratic process creates and legitimises rights. Without the process there are no rights, just the will of the ruling classes. The process holds the system to account and injustices will be solved, but it takes time. I fundamentally believe that rights spring from the system, because without the system and the tacit compliance of the populous there are no rights other than the will and actions of the individual.

[David Wharton]

Umm...because I'm not an ex-politics student?

No but I am, unclear English on my part. A misunderstanding.

[Spike-X]

Now as I understand it there is specific passage about gay marriage in the US constitution

*ding*

Oh look, another tick in the 'Wrong' column!



Seriously, give up and go home. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

[David Wharton]

*ding*

Oh look, another tick in the 'Wrong' column!



Seriously, give up and go home. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

No you are wrong, please give me an exact quote from the Bill of Rights about GAY marriage.

I'm happy to wait.

[Spike-X]

No you are wrong, please give me an exact quote from the Bill of Rights about GAY marriage.

I'm happy to wait.
Oh, were you trying to say there is no specific passage about gay marriage in the US Constitution?

In that case, you probably should have put the word 'no' somewhere in that sentence, shouldn't you?



Either way, so what? As far as I know, there is no mention of marriage at all, yet the anti-miscegenation laws were still struck down as unconstitutional.

By the courts, not a majority vote of the people.

[Larime]

No you are wrong, please give me an exact quote from the Bill of Rights about GAY marriage.

I'm happy to wait.

The Constitution doesn't say fuckall about marriage, period.YOU claimed there was a passage about it. Unless you mistyped again. Seriously, YOU said:

Now as I understand it there is specific passage about gay marriage in the US constitution

And you also completely dodged my post where I put to rest your claims.

Seriously. Admit you're wrong and quit while you can.

[David Wharton]

Oh, were you trying to say there is no specific passage about gay marriage in the US Constitution?

In that case, you probably should have put the word 'no' somewhere in that sentence, shouldn't you?



Either way, so what? As far as I know, there is no mention of marriage at all, yet the anti-miscegenation laws were still struck down as unconstitutional.

By the courts, not a majority vote of the people.

Fair enough, if it is by the courts because that is how the US system works. I do have a strong feeling that it will end up in the Roberts Supreme Court and I don't think, given its conservative bias that it would be upheld there.

[David Wharton]

The Constitution doesn't say fuckall about marriage, period.YOU claimed there was a passage about it. Unless you mistyped again. Seriously, YOU said:



And you also completely dodged my post where I put to rest your claims.

Seriously. Admit you're wrong and quit while you can.

I did mistype, I left out the "no" mea culpa. I just went on my lunch break and will look at your post again. I don't dodge.

[Spike-X]

Fair enough, if it is by the courts because that is how the US system works.

Wait a second...

You've been arguing that rights can and should be withheld if a majority votes that way, yet now you're saying that it's okay for courts to overturn the laws withholding those rights. Which goes against the will of the people, since you've said earlier that legislation is only introduced if it's popular with the people. Therefore, if the majority didn't want the anti-miscegenation laws, they never would have been brought in.

So is it majority rules, or isn't it?

[David Wharton]

Wrong.

When the Supreme Court determined that bi-racial couples had a right to marry, all polls showed the rather sizable majority opposed the idea. In fact, it wasn't until Clinton's era that polls finally showed a majority of Americans favored bi-racial marriage.

That is an indisputable fact.

Your argument that if they really opposed it, they'd have gone the Amendment route is riddled with holes. Such as:

The media portrayed those opposed to equal rights as being bigots. Most people didn't want to be identified as a bigot.

The Amendment process is not a simple majority vote. It requires a fuckload of hoops to jump through and a super-majority backing, to - in the words of my poli-sci professor - protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The founders specifically did not want a bunch of dipshits running roughshod over everyone else.

So no. You are factually wrong.

You. Are. Factually. Wrong.

The law told society to go fuck itself, and society only got over it in the 90's.

That is the US system, The Supreme Court had every right to do just that and I support it. There was not enough of a majority to legislate against it ergo the system worked.

The mixed marriage issue is one example, on one topic that could very well be a statistical anonamoly. Find more evidence on women's sufferage, black sufferage and the like. Find out what people thought at the time of Brown v The board of education. As I said earlier I believe that society in the 60s was on the whole either supportive or at least ambivilant towards black civil rights. If they weren't the politicians wouldn't have been re-elected and laws would have been changed. That is a fact.

I do understand the point on supermajorities and amendment. The system was designed to ensure that people are protected from the heavy hand of the state. Separation of powers via bicameralism, staggering of elections and clear demarcation between the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.

It is IMO one of the big faults of the US system that it lacks the ability to adapt to changes in society. What possible use is the 2nd amendment in modern America? Why should felons have the right to hide behind the 5th? Or a right to silence? It is this inflexability that led to the stinking sore that is Guantanamo Bay.

[Michael P]

That is the US system, The Supreme Court had every right to do just that and I support it. There was not enough of a majority to legislate against it ergo the system worked.

The mixed marriage issue is one example, on one topic that could very well be a statistical anonamoly. Find more evidence on women's sufferage, black sufferage and the like. Find out what people thought at the time of Brown v The board of education. As I said earlier I believe that society in the 60s was on the whole either supportive or at least ambivilant towards black civil rights. If they weren't the politicians wouldn't have been re-elected and laws would have been changed. That is a fact.

I do understand the point on supermajorities and amendment. The system was designed to ensure that people are protected from the heavy hand of the state. Separation of powers via bicameralism, staggering of elections and clear demarcation between the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.

It is IMO one of the big faults of the US system that it lacks the ability to adapt to changes in society. What possible use is the 2nd amendment in modern America? Why should felons have the right to hide behind the 5th? Or a right to silence? It is this inflexability that led to the stinking sore that is Guantanamo Bay.

Are you stupid? Did you actually just say that the problem with Guantanamo Bay is that prisoners have too many rights in the US, forcing the government to ship them to Cuba and torture them for information?

[Flâneur]

The mixed marriage issue is one example, on one topic that could very well be a statistical anonamoly. Find more evidence on women's sufferage, black sufferage and the like. Find out what people thought at the time of Brown v The board of education. As I said earlier I believe that society in the 60s was on the whole either supportive or at least ambivilant towards black civil rights. If they weren't the politicians wouldn't have been re-elected and laws would have been changed. That is a fact.

I'm curious, why do you believe society was supportive of the black civil rights movement in the 60s?

[Spike-X]

I believe that society in the 60s was on the whole either supportive or at least ambivilant towards black civil rights.

If society had been so supportive of black civil rights, there wouldn't have had to be a movement in the first place.

[David Wharton]

Wait a second...

You've been arguing that rights can and should be withheld if a majority votes that way, yet now you're saying that it's okay for courts to overturn the laws withholding those rights. Which goes against the will of the people, since you've said earlier that legislation is only introduced if it's popular with the people. Therefore, if the majority didn't want the anti-miscegenation laws, they never would have been brought in.

So is it majority rules, or isn't it?

Its the system which matters. Work within the system to achieve your goals. If the system allows referendums, abide by the results. If the system annuls those result in the courts then that is the system.

My central point is that rights are only as valid as the system that recognises them. If the system kicks them out, they are invalid. If the system legitimises them they are valid. That is the core of my political philosophy and what I have been argueing over.

I believe that society holds the democratic system accountable in elections and if something is unpopular enough it will be repealed. Civil rights legislation was not unpopular enough to be repealed so it wasn't. Civil partnerships in California wre so it was kicked out. It might be struck off by the judicial system, if so fair enough that is within the power of the constitution.

I don't believe in inalienable human rights, they just don't exist unless you live in a country where they are law. Rights are subject to the system not transcendant of it.

[David Wharton]

Are you stupid? Did you actually just say that the problem with Guantanamo Bay is that prisoners have too many rights in the US, forcing the government to ship them to Cuba and torture them for information?

Essentially that is why Gitmo exists right? I didn't say I agreed with it. But that is why they aren't in US prisions.

[Spike-X]

My central point is that rights are only as valid as the system that recognises them. If the system kicks them out, they are invalid. If the system legitimises them they are valid. That is the core of my political philosophy and what I have been argueing over.
.
I believe your political philosophy is flawed. The system exists to serve the people, not the other way around. All of the people, not just the ones with the loudest voices.

I don't believe in inalienable human rights, they just don't exist unless you live in a country where they are law.

Such as The United States Of America, which has the very concept of inalienable rights enshrined in its Constitution?

[Agent Helix]

Essentially that is why Gitmo exists right? I didn't say I agreed with it. But that is why they aren't in US prisions.

No, it exists because some corrupt fuckers wanted to circumvent the rights of those prisoners, not because they had too many.

Jesus what an utterly repellent world view you've cultivated for yourself.

[Michael P]

No, it exists because some corrupt fuckers wanted to circumvent the rights of those prisoners, not because they had too many.

Ah, but if they didn't have those rights, the corrupt fuckers wouldn't have to circumvent them!

This, folks, is why logic will not save us.

[David Wharton]

Dounle post

[David Wharton]

No, it exists because some corrupt fuckers wanted to circumvent the rights of those prisoners, not because they had too many.

Jesus what an utterly repellent world view you've cultivated for yourself.

Not repellent realistic. I agree with you on Gitmo 100%, I just understand why those in charge felt that they had to create the prison.

I see both sides.

[Agent Helix]

FUCK that shit. When one side is about denying rights and civil liberties, they shouldn't be given the same credence.

You want to claim to be a devil's advocate, fine. Enjoy consorting with devils.

[Spike-X]

Essentially that is why Gitmo exists right? I didn't say I agreed with it. But that is why they aren't in US prisions.
Yeah, you're right. If those nasty ol' suspects (not felons - suspects) didn't insist on being human beings with rights and civil liberties, the pool lil' government wouldn't have been forced - forced, I say! - to send them to other countries to be tortured.


Jesus, man. What colour is the sky on your planet?

[Calybos]

That is the US system, The Supreme Court had every right to do just that and I support it. There was not enough of a majority to legislate against it ergo the system worked.

David, you and others may have skipped by it, but you just agreed with the majority of posters here.

"The System" in the U.S. includes the Supreme Court and other courts, which can and do strike down majority-vote opinions in favor of civil rights. You have just agreed that this is a proper and appropriate thing for them to do; it's part of our democratic system.

Therefore, overturning the will of the majority IS an inherent part of our governmental structure, in the form of the courts. You say you have faith in our process--well, this IS the process. The majority vote getting kicked to the curb because it stands in the way of civil rights is a built-in element of the system you praise so highly. Your error comes from assuming that "the will of the popular majority" is an inherent trump card over all other considerations; that's emphatically NOT how the U.S. government works, and you've already conceded that you approve of the judiciary-overrule aspect of our system.

I'm glad you appreciate it.

[David Wharton]

Yeah, you're right. If those nasty ol' suspects (not felons - suspects) didn't insist on being human beings with rights and civil liberties, the pool lil' government wouldn't have been forced - forced, I say! - to send them to other countries to be tortured.


Jesus, man. What colour is the sky on your planet?

I totally agree with that first paragraph. I just understand why they felt they had to set up Gitmo.

As for the sky colour, its a sort of murky grey at the moment

[David Wharton]

David, you and others may have skipped by it, but you just agreed with the majority of posters here.

"The System" in the U.S. includes the Supreme Court and other courts, which can and do strike down majority-vote opinions in favor of civil rights. You have just agreed that this is a proper and appropriate thing for them to do; it's part of our democratic system.

Therefore, overturning the will of the majority IS an inherent part of our governmental structure, in the form of the courts. You say you have faith in our process--well, this IS the process. The majority vote getting kicked to the curb because it stands in the way of civil rights is a built-in element of the system you praise so highly. Your error comes from assuming that "the will of the popular majority" is an inherent trump card over all other considerations; that's emphatically NOT how the U.S. government works, and you've already conceded that you approve of the judiciary-overrule aspect of our system.

I'm glad you appreciate it.

I don't disagree with that. If something is unpopular enough there is a mechanism that allows for the constitution to be changed and in effect over-rule even the Supreme Court. It is needed for any written constitution and has been IMHO set at too high a threshold in the US constitution.

That is my whole point society was ready accept or was at least ambivilant enough towards black civil rights in the 60's not to kick out the politicians who created the laws in the first place. Ergo society was ready for change not forced to by law.

[Stressfactor]

Okay, lots and lots and LOTS of points here:

1) There WAS SERIOUS political fallout from the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's -- When President Johnson signed "The Voting Rights Act" of 1964 (which insured the rights of African Americans to vote) he is rumored to have said "We have now lost the South for a generation" -- meaning that Southern States would not vote a Democrat into high public office for a generation -- and he was pretty much correct. The South went VERY Republican for more than a generation.

2) People keep tossing around the term "Democracy" while, in point of fact, what the United States has is NOT a true Democracy -- it is technically a Republic. In a "pure" Democracy -- yes, the majority truly rules. It was to AVOID the potential abuses of a "Tyrrany of the Majority" that the US was designed as a Republic.

3) A lot of people discount Inertia. There are many, many, MANY people who simply don't participate because they can't be convinced that the issue really impacts them. For someone who does not believe that allowing gay marriage will be the end of civilization as we know it they sit around and they say "I don't know any gay people, I'm not gay myself, so this doesn't impact me and I don't care so I'm not going to get involved.

4) Brown vs. the Board of Education: I work at an archives that contains the papers of a university professor of Education who was called into the case to testify about the problems of segregation so I know a little bit about this. A lot of people misunderstand the case. In MOST communities the "seperate but equal" ruling didn't hold much water because the facilities provided for the African-American community were decidedly sub-standard and NOT equal. What made the Brown v. Board case important was that, in Topeka, the school for the African American children was actually EQUAL in every way. The issue was that the black children had to be bused, some for MILES to go to THIS school when, in many cases, there were schools right around the corner, within WALKING distance that they could not go to because they were not white. Because of this the segregation case was tried on merts alone and NOT based on facilities or lack thereof.

[Matt Algren]

Decades ago, employers could fire someone for being gay.
Quick clarification: Employers can still fire someone for being gay. My boss could come in my office right now and tell me "I'm firing you because you're gay" and I would have no legal recourse. That's what the Employee Non-Discrimination Act is about.



Yes. You seem to think people have the 'right' to vote against other human beings being treated equally. You are wrong.In the US system they do, otherwise prop 8 wouldn't have passed. Quid pro quo.You've used that term several times. I'm pretty sure you mean Q.E.D.

In which case, you're still wrong. The validity of Prop 8 and the legality of voting to remove recognition of a group's rights were both raised before November. The court told them to let it be and they'd decide both after the vote if necessary.

I personally support gay marriage...I've been thinking about this, and I don't think you do. What you're describing throughout this thread is a laissez-faire attitude, which amounts to "I don't care." That's a reasonable attitude to have (though I tend to disagree with it) if you're talking about strictly policy issues like health care or the budget, but not when you're talking about civil rights.
True but you have work within the system to effect change. Sometimes the system doesn't work the way that you want it to, but you have to abide by the due process. Democracy is imperfect, especially when dealing with contentious and emotional issues, but it is the best system we have. It is also an alterable system, it just takes time for it to adapt to a changing world. I know that it is harsh on those who are suffering at the moment, but gay marriage needs to go through this process to achieve legitimacy.

The process creates human rights not the other way around people.
You're wrong. To clarify, equal marriage rights is not the main issue. It is a symptom of a greater issue, namely civil, or human, rights. Other symptoms include anti-miscegenation laws, slavery laws, segregation laws, etc., etc., etc. What we're doing is continuing the bending of the arc of justice, not creating human rights.
The thing is I believe that you are at the Factal Wrong end with your arguement. Chicken, Egg. Does the system create the rights or does the rights create the system.

I fundamentally believe that the system creates rights. Human rights are only as valid as the government that imposes them. If they were inalienable places like, China, Zimbabwe, Iran, Russia and their Ilk would support them.
What a silly argument. The rights exist; they are intrinsic. The goal of the American system (theoretically, at least) is to recognize those rights, not create them.
Wait a second...

You've been arguing that rights can and should be withheld if a majority votes that way, yet now you're saying that it's okay for courts to overturn the laws withholding those rights. Which goes against the will of the people, since you've said earlier that legislation is only introduced if it's popular with the people. Therefore, if the majority didn't want the anti-miscegenation laws, they never would have been brought in.

So is it majority rules, or isn't it?
Automobiles are designed to be driven by right-handed people, not left-handed people. It would cost too much for automobile manufacturers to design and manufacture automobiles to be driven by left-handed people at equivalent skill levels. It is unreasonable to expect automobile manufactures to spend so much for so few people, and it is unreasonable to expect right-handed drivers to suffer because of left-handed drivers' lesser abilities at driving right-handed automobiles.

Accordingly, I vote that left-handed people shouldn't be allowed to drive automobiles.

See how silly that sounds?

[a. non]

Its the system which matters.
...


My central point is that rights are only as valid as the system that recognises them.
...

I don't believe in inalienable human rights, they just don't exist unless you live in a country where they are law. Rights are subject to the system not transcendant of it.


Oh My God...

When you're ready to sit at the Big People Table, we'll still be here

*shakes head in shame*

*ignore*

[TCJohnson]

Quick clarification: Employers can still fire someone for being gay. My boss could come in my office right now and tell me "I'm firing you because you're gay" and I would have no legal recourse. That's what the Employee Non-Discrimination Act is about.

Actually, depends on the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_LGBT_civil_rights_August_2008.png

[Matt Algren]

Actually, depends on the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_LGBT_civil_rights_August_2008.png
Which is why there should be a federal law.

BTW, interesting pattern of states there. Anybody else recognize it from November?

[Charles RB]

What century are the grey states living in?

[David Wharton]

Oh My God...

When you're ready to sit at the Big People Table, we'll still be here

*shakes head in shame*

*ignore*

What I deal in is political reality. There are no such things as universal human rights. I may believe in them, but they only exist dependant on the state where are at the moment.

Sorry if this is hard for you to understand but it is the way the world works.

[JeffreyWKramer]

What I deal in is political reality. There are no such things as universal human rights. I may believe in them, but they only exist dependant on the state where are at the moment.

Sorry if this is hard for you to understand but it is the way the world works.

The way you describe is not the least bit how the world works. People never get treated with equality by just standing about and waiting for it to happen. They get treated equally by speaking out, confronting injustice and demanding something better. So, no, "go sit down in the back of the bus and wait your turn and eventually you'll get what you want" isn't any sort of political reality, and never has been.

Your idea that the beliefs held by opponents of gay marriage are worthy of respect is also ridiculous. It's no more incorrect to label such ideas as ignorant and bigoted than it was incorrect to label racist viewpoints in that way.

[David Wharton]

Okay, lots and lots and LOTS of points here:

1) There WAS SERIOUS political fallout from the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's -- When President Johnson signed "The Voting Rights Act" of 1964 (which insured the rights of African Americans to vote) he is rumored to have said "We have now lost the South for a generation" -- meaning that Southern States would not vote a Democrat into high public office for a generation -- and he was pretty much correct. The South went VERY Republican for more than a generation.

2) People keep tossing around the term "Democracy" while, in point of fact, what the United States has is NOT a true Democracy -- it is technically a Republic. In a "pure" Democracy -- yes, the majority truly rules. It was to AVOID the potential abuses of a "Tyrrany of the Majority" that the US was designed as a Republic.

3) A lot of people discount Inertia. There are many, many, MANY people who simply don't participate because they can't be convinced that the issue really impacts them. For someone who does not believe that allowing gay marriage will be the end of civilization as we know it they sit around and they say "I don't know any gay people, I'm not gay myself, so this doesn't impact me and I don't care so I'm not going to get involved.

4) Brown vs. the Board of Education: I work at an archives that contains the papers of a university professor of Education who was called into the case to testify about the problems of segregation so I know a little bit about this. A lot of people misunderstand the case. In MOST communities the "seperate but equal" ruling didn't hold much water because the facilities provided for the African-American community were decidedly sub-standard and NOT equal. What made the Brown v. Board case important was that, in Topeka, the school for the African American children was actually EQUAL in every way. The issue was that the black children had to be bused, some for MILES to go to THIS school when, in many cases, there were schools right around the corner, within WALKING distance that they could not go to because they were not white. Because of this the segregation case was tried on merts alone and NOT based on facilities or lack thereof.

1) Totally agree, but it was not drastic enough to repeal the civil rights legislation. Plus it is starting to fragment quite badly now.

2) Yes that is true as well. The US system is a mess of checks and balances that protects everyone and gets next to nothing done.

3) I already used this point as a part of my arguement, when I said about enough people being either pro or not bothered about the civil legislation to prevent it from being repealed. It will happen with gay marriage in the future

4) Interesting I didn't know that.

[David Wharton]

The way you describe is not the least bit how the world works. People never get treated with equality by just standing about and waiting for it to happen. They get treated equally by speaking out, confronting injustice and demanding something better. So, no, "go sit down in the back of the bus and wait your turn and eventually you'll get what you want" isn't any sort of political reality, and never has been.

Your idea that the beliefs held by opponents of gay marriage are worthy of respect is also ridiculous. It's no more incorrect to label such ideas as ignorant and bigoted than it was incorrect to label racist viewpoints in that way.

Go on then campaign for civil rights in Zimbabwe, or Iran, or Burma. See how well those rights and you are respected. The reality is that civil rights are only as valid as the system which enforces them.

Everyone is worth of respect with their arguements, then you try to systematicly destroy those arguements if you don't believe them.

[Stressfactor]

Respectfully I disagree with your statment that "civil rights are only as valid as the system which enforces them".

This seems to be putting the cart before the horse. You are saying here that GOVERNMENT has to ENFORCE civil rights -- what might be more true is that government must CURB some civil rights and some governments go too far.

Obviously not a fan of either Locke or Hobbs are you?

[Samurai]

I have done. That was an attack on Soviet Russia and its inner corruption. I understand the point you are trying to make, but there was no democracy there just an elite handing down declarations from up high.

Now as I understand it there is specific passage about gay marriage in the US constitution, as such by the US system it is open debate and legislation. I believe in the long term gay marriage will be recognised but the system has work its course. Democracy allowed for a referendum, which led to prop 8 and it passed. Now the courts could and in Cal almost certainly will overturn prop 8, if so fine, that is how the US system works.

The democratic process creates and legitimises rights. Without the process there are no rights, just the will of the ruling classes. The process holds the system to account and injustices will be solved, but it takes time. I fundamentally believe that rights spring from the system, because without the system and the tacit compliance of the populous there are no rights other than the will and actions of the individual.

Actually, that shouldn't be how the system works. You see, the courts previously overturned a law that the California voters had passed, saying it was unconstitutional. That's fine, the Supreme Court's job is to uphold the Constitution and judge whether laws meet it. So Prop 8 was written to be a Constitutional Amendment, NOT a law. The Supreme Court has no authority at all to strike down part of the Constitution. Just the opposite, they are supposed to uphold the Constitution. So if they strike down a Constitutional Amendment like Prop 8, they have exceeded their legal authority simply because they want to keep denying the will of the people.


SC Judges: "This law banning gay marriages goes against the Constitution."

People of CA: "Ok, fine, then we'll change the Constitution." **Passes the Prop 8 Constitutional Amendment** "There, now it is in the Constitution."

SC Judges: "We want to over-rule what the Constitution now says because we don't like it."

People of CA: "Huh? You have no authority to do that! You said before that our previous law violated the Constitution, so we changed the Constitution for you, so by what authority can you strike down a Constitutional Amendment?"

[Stressfactor]

Actually, that shouldn't be how the system works. You see, the courts previously overturned a law that the California voters had passed, saying it was unconstitutional. That's fine, the Supreme Court's job is to uphold the Constitution and judge whether laws meet it. So Prop 8 was written to be a Constitutional Amendment, NOT a law. The Supreme Court has no authority at all to strike down part of the Constitution. Just the opposite, they are supposed to uphold the Constitution. So if they strike down a Constitutional Amendment like Prop 8, they have exceeded their legal authority simply because they want to keep denying the will of the people.


SC Judges: "This law banning gay marriages goes against the Constitution."

People of CA: "Ok, fine, then we'll change the Constitution." **Passes the Prop 8 Constitutional Amendment** "There, now it is in the Constitution."

SC Judges: "We want to over-rule what the Constitution now says because we don't like it."

People of CA: "Huh? You have no authority to do that! You said before that our previous law violated the Constitution, so we changed the Constitution for you, so by what authority can you strike down a Constitutional Amendment?"
And by that arguement, if all the people in California voted tomorrow to add a constitutional amendment that said that NO ONE could become a state resident. Nope, sorry, Cali is full, it doesn't matter who you are or where you come from you can't LIVE in this state. You can come visit but you can't become a legal state resident. Then the courts should uphold that?

[Calybos]

The supreme court of California might be obligated to uphold that.

Fortunately, we have district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court, which can override all that state-level nonsense.

[Matt Algren]

Actually, that shouldn't be how the system works. You see, the courts previously overturned a law that the California voters had passed, saying it was unconstitutional. That's fine, the Supreme Court's job is to uphold the Constitution and judge whether laws meet it. So Prop 8 was written to be a Constitutional Amendment, NOT a law. The Supreme Court has no authority at all to strike down part of the Constitution. Just the opposite, they are supposed to uphold the Constitution. So if they strike down a Constitutional Amendment like Prop 8, they have exceeded their legal authority simply because they want to keep denying the will of the people.


SC Judges: "This law banning gay marriages goes against the Constitution."

People of CA: "Ok, fine, then we'll change the Constitution." **Passes the Prop 8 Constitutional Amendment** "There, now it is in the Constitution."

SC Judges: "We want to over-rule what the Constitution now says because we don't like it."

People of CA: "Huh? You have no authority to do that! You said before that our previous law violated the Constitution, so we changed the Constitution for you, so by what authority can you strike down a Constitutional Amendment?"
Nope. The reason is specific to the California Constitution. In their system, there are two types of changes to the Constitution. One is an amendment, which needs signatures of 8% of voters and a majority vote in the general election. An amendment is a new section tacked on the end that doesn't change or interfere with any other part of the Constitution.

The other type of change is a Revision, which requires 2/3 vote from each house in their legislature and a majority vote in the general election. A Revision makes a change that alters other parts of the Constitution, which is why the requirements are harder to achieve.

The problem is (at least this is the argument) that Prop 8 is a Revision, not an Amendment. Putting into the California Constitution a section that says that group X doesn't have right Y contradicts another part of the Constitution that provides equal access and protection. Both clauses must coexist if Prop 8 is taken as an Amendment, yet they necessarily can't coexist. Prop 8 doesn't amend the constitution, it revises the constitution.

Therefore, Prop 8 is a Constitutional Revision dressed up as a Constitutional Amendment. And if it's a Revision, it should have gone through the Revision process (2/3 of each legislative body) rather than the less stringent Amendment process (8% of voters).

[Tommy]

It is IMO one of the big faults of the US system that it lacks the ability to adapt to changes in society. What possible use is the 2nd amendment in modern America? Why should felons have the right to hide behind the 5th? Or a right to silence? It is this inflexability that led to the stinking sore that is Guantanamo Bay.

Did you just seriously criticize the fifth amendment to the US Constitution?

[David Wharton]

Did you just seriously criticize the fifth amendment to the US Constitution?

Yes no one should have the right to avoid telling the truth in a court of law. Which is what the 5th amendment can allow to happen. Why should anyone who has commited a crime, have a right to avoid admitting so in a court of law?

It is to me blatently illogical.

[David Wharton]

Respectfully I disagree with your statment that "civil rights are only as valid as the system which enforces them".

This seems to be putting the cart before the horse. You are saying here that GOVERNMENT has to ENFORCE civil rights -- what might be more true is that government must CURB some civil rights and some governments go too far.

Obviously not a fan of either Locke or Hobbs are you?

I do lean more towards Burke but that won't surprise you.

[Tommy]

Yes no one should have the right to avoid telling the truth in a court of law. Which is what the 5th amendment can allow to happen. Why should anyone who has commited a crime, have a right to avoid admitting so in a court of law?

It is to me blatently illogical.

Yes, protection from coerced confessions is blatantly illogical.

[Tony Bang]

I do lean more towards Burke but that won't surprise you.

I'm a bit under read when it comes to Burke, but didn't he criticize the French Revolution for creating a tyrannical democracy? It would seem to me he wouldn't be all the fond of the populace voting away civil rights.

[Adam C]

Yes no one should have the right to avoid telling the truth in a court of law. Which is what the 5th amendment can allow to happen. Why should anyone who has commited a crime, have a right to avoid admitting so in a court of law?

It is to me blatently illogical.

You mean having the right not to incriminate one's self and therefore not be coerced into confessing like in many authoritarian states is illogical? Is that why Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and other such liberal democracies all have the same concept in their legal codes? And how does it protect someone from lying in a court of law when laws against perjury exist and people testifying in the court are required to swear an oath to tell the truth? Your criticism makes no sense. (Never mind that said amendment also guarantees due process, right against unreasonable search seizure, etc...)

And Guantanamo is a sucking hole because the Bush administration gave no thoughts to legal (and ethical ramifications) of imprisonment without a proper legal structure in place. And because they have been torturing people in that place.

[Stressfactor]

Not to mention that Guantanmo has to do with basic, human decency. If Bush had brought the prisoner to the US

1) There probably would have been a number of people have a shit-fit over them durn furriners being in their backyards and what would happen if they escaped? Horrors!

2) At Guantanmo not only wouldn't the prisoners have rights but (Bush thought at the time) no outsides, no one not bascially controlled by or loyal to the Bush administration would ever see what was done to them. Therefore they could be tortured. Not just denied rights but treated as less than human without anyone knowing.

[David Wharton]

You mean having the right not to incriminate one's self and therefore not be coerced into confessing like in many authoritarian states is illogical? Is that why Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and other such liberal democracies all have the same concept in their legal codes? And how does it protect someone from lying in a court of law when laws against perjury exist and people testifying in the court are required to swear an oath to tell the truth? Your criticism makes no sense. (Never mind that said amendment also guarantees due process, right against unreasonable search seizure, etc...)

And Guantanamo is a sucking hole because the Bush administration gave no thoughts to legal (and ethical ramifications) of imprisonment without a proper legal structure in place. And because they have been torturing people in that place.

Yes but the 5th is a blunt tool, which gives carte blanche to those who want hide the truth through omition. The law in the UK is specific regarding forced confessions, the 5th allows the guilty to hide.

[Spike-X]

Yes no one should have the right to avoid telling the truth in a court of law. Which is what the 5th amendment can allow to happen. Why should anyone who has commited a crime, have a right to avoid admitting so in a court of law?

It is to me blatently illogical.
Okay, let's assume for a minute that your ridiculous idea actually becomes law, and that the fifth amendment is repealed.

To what extremes are the police now allowed to go to extract a confession from you for a crime that they're positive you've committed? Remember, you've not actually been tried and convicted for this crime yet, so there's still that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, too.

Or do you not believe in that, either?

[Paul McEnery]

Go on then campaign for civil rights in Zimbabwe, or Iran, or Burma. See how well those rights and you are respected. The reality is that civil rights are only as valid as the system which enforces them..

Fine. Say we accept this.

In which case, rolling over and accepting encroachments on our civil liberties with nothing more than a "please sir, can I have another?" on our lips -- that would be pretty fucking stupid, wouldn't it.

[Spike-X]

That is my whole point society was ready accept or was at least ambivilant enough towards black civil rights in the 60's not to kick out the politicians who created the laws in the first place. Ergo society was ready for change not forced to by law.

And I will repeat what I said earlier - if society had been ready to accept black civil rights, as you have repeatedly, erroneously claimed, there would not have been the need for a Black Civil Rights Movement in the first place.

[Sound Silence]

Yes but the 5th is a blunt tool, which gives carte blanche to those who want hide the truth through omition. The law in the UK is specific regarding forced confessions, the 5th allows the guilty to hide.

Do you also believe the government should be able to just come into your house, search wherever they wish, and take whatever they wish as evidence for whatever reason (including no reason)?

[Tommy]

Yes but the 5th is a blunt tool, which gives carte blanche to those who want hide the truth through omition. The law in the UK is specific regarding forced confessions, the 5th allows the guilty to hide.

After all, why should the state be forced to "prove" someone is guilty, rather than simply coercing a confession?

[sk716]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/Spike-X/little_rock_desegregation_1957.jpg

So this is what society being ready for change looks like, is it?

Where I'm from, it looks a little more like this:

http://rcarterpittman.org/images/Little_Rock.jpg
Central High School, Little Rock, AR

[Reverend Smooth]

FUCK that shit. When one side is about denying rights and civil liberties, they shouldn't be given the same credence.

You want to claim to be a devil's advocate, fine. Enjoy consorting with devils.
Pretty much, yeah. Not every opinion is worthy of respect. In fact, the folks against gay marriage's whole position is that they disrespect the right of gays to marry, so why should they be offered the consideration they won't extend to others?

'But those are their feelings! Their beliefs!' Yes, well, sometimes feelings and beliefs are wrong. 'But that's subjective!' Yes, well, I am not voting to take their rights away. I'm just telling them they're wrong to try to do that to me.

Or do the fundies think it's fair to, say, introduce constitutional amendments banning them from marriage because their divorce rates are higher?

[Hurricane]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/Spike-X/little_rock_desegregation_1957.jpg

So this is what society being ready for change looks like, is it?

That actually looks like 4 of the 5 school districts in this county every Monday morning.

[Spike-X]

Where I'm from, it looks a little more like this:

http://rcarterpittman.org/images/Little_Rock.jpg
Central High School, Little Rock, AR

Now there's a society that's ready to accept black civil rights!

[Matt Algren]

Pretty much, yeah. Not every opinion is worthy of respect. In fact, the folks against gay marriage's whole position is that they disrespect the right of gays to marry, so why should they be offered the consideration they won't extend to others?

'But those are their feelings! Their beliefs!' Yes, well, sometimes feelings and beliefs are wrong. 'But that's subjective!' Yes, well, I am not voting to take their rights away. I'm just telling them they're wrong to try to do that to me.

Or do the fundies think it's fair to, say, introduce constitutional amendments banning them from marriage because their divorce rates are higher?
I'm already tired of the new code words for prejudicial: "traditional" and "deeply held".

[Reverend Smooth]

I'm already tired of the new code words for prejudicial: "traditional" and "deeply held".

It's not very new. For folks who adamantly say that the civil rights movement and this are not the same, they sure are okay with using the same arguments against either.

[Tommy]

I'm already tired of the new code words for prejudicial: "traditional" and "deeply held".

Personaly I love the three step DESTRUCTION OF MARRIAGE!

Step 1: Gays are allowed to marry.

Step 2: ??????

Step 3: Marriage (or possibly America) is destroyed.

I've yet to hear a satisfactory step two in that process (probably because there isn't one.)

[Matt Algren]

Personaly I love the three step DESTRUCTION OF MARRIAGE!

Step 1: Gays are allowed to marry.

Step 2: BUTTSECKS!!!

Step 3: Marriage (or possibly America) is destroyed.

I've yet to hear a satisfactory step two in that process (probably because there isn't one.)That was easy!

[Charles RB]

Shit! And divorce rates have gone up in a similar timeframe to anal sex being less taboo for heterosexual couples!

Clearly we can only allow lesbians to get married if we want to protect marriage.

[Hurricane]

One of these days we'll get to see this:
http://i43.tinypic.com/28bgnm1.jpg

A black man and a white man being married to each other by a Mexican priest, getting the thumbs up from a cop because it's legal and a group of orphans cheer as they may be adopted by two loving daddies.



Oh... and they're all smoking joints because that's legal too. :)


And it will be edited together better because God won't have to use his finger to put the whole thing together because he left his mouse at home and is using a laptop.

[Hurricane]

I'm already tired of the new code words for prejudicial: "traditional" and "deeply held".

I wonder if the people who use the term "traditional" had their marriages arranged by their parents for business or political purposes with no romantic attraction involved in any way. Also, the wife basically becomes the property of the husband and must sit at home and make babies and dinner 24 hours a day.

[Tommy]

I wonder if the people who use the term "traditional" had their marriages arranged by their parents for business or political purposes with no romantic attraction involved in any way. Also, the wife basically becomes the property of the husband and must sit at home and make babies and dinner 24 hours a day.

The best is the exact same people who say "5,000 years of marriage shouldn't be changed" also say "if we allow gay marriage, then we have to allow polygamy."

[Sound Silence]

One of these days we'll get to see this:
http://i43.tinypic.com/28bgnm1.jpg

A black man and a white man being married to each other by a Mexican priest, getting the thumbs up from a cop because it's legal and a group of orphans cheer as they may be adopted by two loving daddies.



Oh... and they're all smoking joints because that's legal too. :)


And it will be edited together better because God won't have to use his finger to put the whole thing together because he left his mouse at home and is using a laptop.

And the cake is zero calorie.

[Mermaid]

zero calorie cake?? Now that's what I call progress!

(The black dude's hot btw, is he zero calorie too?) :biggrin:

[beetlebum]

zero calorie cake?? Now that's what I call progress!

(The black dude's hot btw, is he zero calorie too?) :biggrin:

[Insert dirty joke here]

I dunno; why don't you hunt him down, give him a try, and then report back to us.

;)

:evilsmile:

[David Wharton]

Okay, let's assume for a minute that your ridiculous idea actually becomes law, and that the fifth amendment is repealed.

To what extremes are the police now allowed to go to extract a confession from you for a crime that they're positive you've committed? Remember, you've not actually been tried and convicted for this crime yet, so there's still that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, too.

Or do you not believe in that, either?

People where have I said that I want the 5th repealed? I want the law on self incrimination removed and a specific piece added on forced confessions. Targeted law making people, which defends innocents but doesn't help the guilty.

BTW I live in a country where there is no law against self incrimination, no right to silence and where you can be held for up to 28 days without charge (athough this last one does only apply to terrorist acts). Where is this nasty dictatorship, why its the United Kingdom.

Our version of the arresting phrase "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned anything which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

[Michael P]

People where have I said that I want the 5th repealed? I want the law on self incrimination removed

That is the 5th Amendment.

[Spike-X]

BTW I live in a country where there is no law against self incrimination, no right to silence and where you can be held for up to 28 days without charge (athough this last one does only apply to terrorist acts). Where is this nasty dictatorship, why its the United Kingdom.


Yes, we're quite aware that the UK has been turning into quite the little police state for quite some time now, thank you.

[Spike-X]

People where have I said that I want the 5th repealed? I want the law on self incrimination removed and a specific piece added on forced confessions. Targeted law making people, which defends innocents but doesn't help the guilty.

How do we know if they're innocent or guilty if they haven't been tried yet? Because that's, y'know, the purpose of a trial.

[Tommy]

How do we know if they're innocent or guilty if they haven't been tried yet? Because that's, y'know, the purpose of a trial.

No, no, no! It is not the state's job to collect evidence and create an convincing case! Innocent until proven guilty just allows the guilty to hide.

[Spike-X]

That is the 5th Amendment.
Part of it, anyway.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[Tommy]

Anywho to bring it back to Gay Marriage, one of the rights under the fifth amendment is that spouses can not be forced to testify against each other, which is yet another important right denied gay couples that will never materialize sans marriage.

[David Wharton]

That is the 5th Amendment.

You are now quoting me out of context. At least have the decency to quote my whole sentence in full not just parts of it you want to make a point. I don't edit your posts don't do it to mine.

[Spike-X]

So tell me, how exactly do you propose to avoid forcing people to confess if you're repealing the law preventing self-incrimination, which basically means people will be forced to confess?

[Michael P]

I may have shortened your post to the part relevant to my response, but I in no way removed the context. You said you didn't want the 5th Amendment repealed, then stated that you wanted the law against self-incrimination removed. Helen Keller could have picked out the ignorance in that post.

[David Wharton]

Yes, we're quite aware that the UK has been turning into quite the little police state for quite some time now, thank you.

As my key point has always been, the level of freedom and civil rights within a state is decided by the state. If a state refuses to acnowledge those rights they don't exist as anything more than ideas.

That is why there is no such thing as universal human rights. While you may find this objectionable, I think that it is a proveable truth.

[David Wharton]

So tell me, how exactly do you propose to avoid forcing people to confess if you're repealing the law preventing self-incrimination, which basically means people will be forced to confess?

As I said earlier.

People where have I said that I want the 5th repealed? I want the law on self incrimination removed and a specific piece added on forced confessions. Targeted law making people, which defends innocents but doesn't help the guilty.

[David Wharton]

I may have shortened your post to the part relevant to my response, but I in no way removed the context. You said you didn't want the 5th Amendment repealed, then stated that you wanted the law against self-incrimination removed. Helen Keller could have picked out the ignorance in that post.

Read it again.

People where have I said that I want the 5th repealed? I want the law on self incrimination removed and a specific piece added on forced confessions. Targeted law making people, which defends innocents but doesn't help the guilty.

[twilight]

I fail to see any way that gay marriage would negatively impact my life so I have no problem with it.

-Twi

[Michael P]

Read it again.

Uh-huh. That would require a repeal of the 5th amendment as a necessary first step.

Perhaps you should go back up and read it, so you understand where your proposal directly contravenes it. Spike helpfully bolded it for you.

Since you don't live in the US, I don't mind you not understanding how our Constitution works, but I must ask that you stop acting as if you do.

[David Wharton]

Uh-huh. That would require a repeal of the 5th amendment as a necessary first step.

Perhaps you should go back up and read it, so you understand where your proposal directly contravenes it. Spike helpfully bolded it for you.

Since you don't live in the US, I don't mind you not understanding how our Constitution works, but I must ask that you stop acting as if you do.

Would that not be an amendment as opposed to it being repealled?

[Charles RB]

BTW I live in a country where there is no law against self incrimination, no right to silence and where you can be held for up to 28 days without charge (athough this last one does only apply to terrorist acts). Where is this nasty dictatorship, why its the United Kingdom.

And you'll remember the 28-days-without-charge law was contraversial, is higher than other Western nations who have similar laws and argued to be excessive, and meant to be for terrorism suspects only.

And that the government wanted 90 days without charge, then tried for 42 days, and they would've got their way if not for the House of Lords even though MI5 said the law wasn't needed.

So it's a dumb example if you want to imply the UK isn't nasty.

[Adam C]

Yes but the 5th is a blunt tool, which gives carte blanche to those who want hide the truth through omition. The law in the UK is specific regarding forced confessions, the 5th allows the guilty to hide.

You care to back this claim up with evidence? Particularly when...


Our version of the arresting phrase "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned anything which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

That's how the right not to incriminate yourself actually works. Do you even understand the legal concept which you are criticising? Let's actually look at it here through the praxis of American law:

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/self_incrimination/

At trial, the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right not to testify. This means that the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant's lawyer cannot force the defendant to take the witness stand at trial, if he or she does not want to do so. Furthermore, when a defendant exercises his or her right not to testify, the jury is not permitted to take that refusal into consideration when deciding whether the defendant is guilty of the crime(s) charged.

It is important to note that, once a defendant does take the stand and testify at trial, he or she cannot ordinarily choose to answer some questions but not others. Rather, the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege is deemed waived through the act of testifying.

Boom, it only works if you refuse wholesale to testify, but if you do you have to cough up the truth. It does not give one recourse to lie as you claimed earlier.

It's worth actually looking at the history of the right against self incrimination and its actual practice (http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-05/07-self-incrimination.html) some more. This right was a product of the expansion of the accusatorial judicial system in England where people would take oaths to divulge the full extent of his knowledge on the matters being put before him, though he was not advised as to the nature of the charges being laid before him or what he was being questioned upon. This of course gradually led to the acceptance that a person could not be compelled to accuse himself under oath at any proceeding. I also found this very telling bit:


Commonly mentioned in numerous cases was the assertion that the privilege was designed to protect the innocent and to further the search for truth.173 It appears now, however, that the Court has rejected both of these as inapplicable and has settled upon the principle that the clause serves two interrelated interests: the preservation of an accusatorial system of criminal justice, which goes to the integrity of the judicial system, and the preservation of personal privacy from unwarranted governmental intrusion.174 In order to protect these interests and to preserve these values, the privilege "is not to be interpreted literally." Rather, the "sole concern [of the privilege] is, as its name indicates, with the danger to a witness forced to give testimony leading to the infliction of penalties affixed to the criminal acts."175

Oh look. It's a fundamental part of ensuring the integrity of the accusatorial system. Reading through the page further I find out there are pressures to testify when a subpeona is introduced:

The protection is against "compulsory" incrimination, and traditionally the Court has treated within the clause only those compulsions which arise from legally enforceable obligations, culminating in imprisonment for refusal to testify or to produce documents.191 The compulsion need not be imprisonment, but can also be termination of public employment192 or disbarment of a lawyer193 as a legal consequence of a refusal to make incriminating admissions. The degree of coercion may also prove decisive, the Court having ruled that moving a prisoner from a medium security unit to a maximum security unit was insufficient to compel him to incriminate himself in spite of the attendant loss of privileges and the harsher living conditions.194 However, while it appears that prisoners195 and probationers196 have less protection than others, the Court has not yet developed a clear doctrinal explanation to identify the differences between permissible and impermissible coercion.197

Also looking over the Right to Silence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales) in England and Wales I find that this right was not codified until the Judges' Rules of 1912 and before then, while torture was formally banned, mistreatment of suspects was common and refusal to testify was taken as evidence against them. How is that not having the right against self-incrimination is desirable?

[Adam C]

As my key point has always been, the level of freedom and civil rights within a state is decided by the state. If a state refuses to acnowledge those rights they don't exist as anything more than ideas.

Until, of course, people pressure the state into forcing it to recognise those rights as various groups have done over the course of English history. (Or they get rid of that state, which led to the founding of the United States of America.)

That is why there is no such thing as universal human rights. While you may find this objectionable, I think that it is a proveable truth.

So universal human rights exist in so far as States decide they do, and not as standards by which people can strive to or hold states to account over?

[Spike-X]

People where have I said that I want the 5th repealed? I want the law on self incrimination removed and a specific piece added on forced confessions.

Yes, but how is that going to work? You can't on one hand say "We can't force people to confess," then on the other hand compel people to incriminate themselves, which is exactly the same thing as forcing them to confess. How do you not see the glaring contradiction there?!?! You really don't seem to have thought this through at all.

Targeted law making people, which defends innocents but doesn't help the guilty.

And again I ask, how do we know who's innocent and who's guilty when they haven't been tried yet?!?!

[Paul McEnery]

You are now quoting me out of context. At least have the decency to quote my whole sentence in full not just parts of it you want to make a point. I don't edit your posts don't do it to mine.

We do not acknowledge your right not to incriminate yourself.

[Matt Algren]

And again I ask, how do we know who's innocent and who's guilty when they haven't been tried yet?!?!Clearly, we'll need to use the honor system.

[Charles RB]

We should throw out that innocent-until-proven-guilty thing, that might help.

And that trial by jury thing, that just gets in the way. Judges should have full power here.

In fact, let's arm our judges and put them on the streets in place of the police, streamline things and mean we don't need to drag people to courts, we can sentence immediately!

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb162/charlesrb/DreddAmerica.jpg

[Matt Algren]

http://blog.mattalgren.com/2009/01/what-about-gay-marriage/