holmes writes:
I thought we were going to talk about reality. 11 states do not a nation make.
True, but this is a state issue, not a federal one... unless Bush successfully pushes through an amendment in the US constitution.
And it is pretty clear is it not that many of the people that rushed to the polls in fear of gay marriage did so because of the scare gay activists helped create via acts of civil disobediance?
Yes, I know. I'm an unapologetic progressive. I don't believe in compromises that are unjust.
Should black people be allowed to sit anywhere on the bus 1 day a week while sitting in the back of the bus the other 6 days? After a while when people are a little used to seeing black people sitting somewhere else beside the back section, we could make it so they could sit anywhere 2 days a week. Slowly and eventually they'd get to 6 days and then 7 days a week.
Call me crazy, I don't believe in unjust compromises. If the majority are illogical enough to make judgements out of fears, well, tough. Justice is justice.
I don't believe all of the amendments voted on had all three of those points, but you can correct me if I am wrong (a link would be nice if you could).
Actually, I'm not sure. However, I am sure that at least half of them have those points.
But lets say they were. Do you honestly believe most people actually understood what they said? Or would not have been amenable to a lesser proscriptive amendment?
My question is would you have tolerated that black people be allowed to sit anywhere on the bus for 1 day a week? I mean, it's better than always sitting in the back of the bus.
What you saw was a victory for kneejerk reactions and general election ignorance... and I will repeat that it was not necessarily a representation of most people.
Again, more people showed up to the polls than ever before and in those states the amendments passed by double digits. It should tell you something.
This issue is not necessarily like that at all. I think one of the largest bits of groupthink is that gay activists are missing the real point that marriage has a history and a connotation that really is important to some people. While personally I don't care about changing the laws, the reality is that others are, and it doesn't have to do with being antigay (though that always helps).
Yes it is! Remember that before the civil rights movement it was already ingrained in the culture that black people were supposed to be second class citizens. By allowing them to drink out of the same drinking fountains, it threatened a lot of people's beliefs.
Gays are trying to create a brand new tradition in society. It really didn't even exist (in the form we are discussing now) back in the days when homosexuality was considered okay, and that was at least 1000 years ago.
Blacks tried to create a brand new tradition in society, too. The tradition that they tried to create was one where white and black children attend the same school.
The problem is everytime there's a movement to call for justice, there's always going to be people like you who thinks that this time it's different. It's all the same to me. People are being discriminated against and that
ain't right.
Maybe it would have been wiser, more realistic, to go slowly and not make wild overt gestures and reach out to moderates?
Again, would you say that it would have been better for black people to be able to sit anywhere on the bus for 1 day a week, 2 days a week, 3 days a week, and so on?
That's funny becuase that's not what I said at all. It is fingerpointing like that which is not helping your case.
Ok, I apologize for not misrepresenting your position.
Am I now correct to think that you thought it was better for blacks to be able to drink out of any drinking fountain 1 day of the week, 2 days of the week, 3 days, and so on?
Don't you get it that instead of being practical and realistic, this is being pursued with an all or nothing with us or against us mentality?
Well...
If I were not as openminded as I am you would have just alienated me from your cause. In this case you just made me shake my head.
Well, tough for those that aren't as openminded.
It is true that I generally don't like to sugar coat an argument. If I'm standing in front of a slave owner, I believe it is the right thing to say "slavery is evil." I don't believe that I should say, "slavery is only evil 1 day of the week." Then a month later I come back and say, "slavery is only evil 2 days of the week." Then next month, "slavery is evil 3 days of the week."
Slavery is evil, period. There's no other way to describe it, so is our current situation. Discrimination
ain't right.
Uhhhh, that's what your opposition is saying.
Huh? Didn't I make it clear that I don't compromise? Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Anywhere in between is still wrong. Deal with it.
Hate world.
Revenge soon!
™ Version 4.2