is it a states rights issue or is it a civil rights issue? and how exactly does this effect you one way or the other, trump? is the government suddenly taking something away from you?
Do I have to have a grievence myself in order to want our society to follow the rule of law instead of mob rule?
But the whole point of what they're doing is to challenge the law. They can't put it to the test unless people defy it. Perhaps the California Supreme Court, or even the US SC will overturn this law. Damn California Ballot measures.
And yet again conservatives back states' rights, but only when it is a means to reduce individual rights.
I didn't back state's rights. I have contended all along this will drive the issue to be federalize. I think anyone who claims this won't be federalized is being dishonest.
That being noted, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of those who declare that Massachusetts should be free to do what they want because of state's rights in one thread. While ignoring those very same rights in another thread. California has passed a law granting full domestic partnership registration and rights. We have also passed a law declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman. I find it humorous that those who are defending states rights don't care to defend them here.
I pointed out your catch 22 in another thread, and you rightly conceded that it was your own bias showing. Others should be so honest when admitting they only support federalizing or states rights on an issue by issue basis.
I still can't agree with gay marriage. It's just not right. I don't like to see this happening.
[EDIT: removal of tobbacco chewin sounds, but continuation of parody] . . . That is right!! . . It Just isn't Right!! . . . and those African-Americans and European-Americans intermarrying, that just isn't right 'either!![/EDIT: removal of tobbacco chewin sounds]
I didn't back state's rights. I have contended all along this will drive the issue to be federalize. I think anyone who claims this won't be federalized is being dishonest.
I wasn't trying to single you out, I was just making a general statement about how when conservatives say "more states' rights" they really mean "less individual rights." It just seems odd to me.
Quote:
That being noted, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of those who declare that Massachusetts should be free to do what they want because of state's rights in one thread. While ignoring those very same rights in another thread. California has passed a law granting full domestic partnership registration and rights. We have also passed a law declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman. I find it humorous that those who are defending states rights don't care to defend them here.
In California, are those domestic partnership rights open to same-sex couples? I've read your views on this, and we're probably pretty close on this issue. You're not as conservative as other conservatives and I'm not as liberal as other liberals on this particular issue. I have very mixed feelings about opening marriage to gays. Maybe it's just lingering prejudice on my part. But marriage is a mixed legal and religious construct, and as long as that's the case, I think civil unions are the way to go.
Quote:
I pointed out your catch 22 in another thread, and you rightly conceded that it was your own bias showing. Others should be so honest when admitting they only support federalizing or states rights on an issue by issue basis.
I remember that, but I wouldn't call it a bias as much as a political philosophy: states should be able to choose to increase individual rights beyond the national level, but they shouldn't be allowed to go in the other direction.
why go through all of the work that you go through . . . especially when, after watching the effects of your lengthy posts, I know that few attitudes will be changed.
I wasn't trying to single you out, I was just making a general statement about how when conservatives say "more states' rights" they really mean "less individual rights." It just seems odd to me.
In California, are those domestic partnership rights open to same-sex couples? I've read your views on this, and we're probably pretty close on this issue. You're not as conservative as other conservatives and I'm not as liberal as other liberals on this particular issue. I have very mixed feelings about opening marriage to gays. Maybe it's just lingering prejudice on my part. But marriage is a mixed legal and religious construct, and as long as that's the case, I think civil unions are the way to go.
I remember that, but I wouldn't call it a bias as much as a political philosophy: states should be able to choose to increase individual rights beyond the national level, but they shouldn't be allowed to go in the other direction.
California's domestic partnership rights are only open to same sex couples as far as I know. I don't know if I would call my position conservative or liberal since my stance also desires to allow cohabitating couples to find a form of recognition that doesn't force them into "for life" legal commitments while also not making the law treat them as strangers before each other.
As for your "bias" thanks for clarifying it, but to me it is still a one way ticket and bias. At least it is a nice bias though.
groverat, even though I completely disagree with some of your positions as taken on these and other forums, I respect you for backing yourself up. I will admit I kneejerked on the title. I man up to that.
c'mon groverat, don't give me that "toughen up" business. I'm neither out, latent or closeted. I grew up in an environment (not home) that was "two fisted" in the literal sense. I like to think I've become elightened since those times. That's an inflamatory title anyway you cut it. You are too intelligent to throw a cheapie like that up there. You know you have quite the cult of personality going on here. Good for you. Don't abuse it man.
I'll say that political correctness is out of control. That fact can't be denied. However, the idea of PC came out of a very serious need. It's basically been abused, not by the people, or group of people the concept of PC was intended to cover or protect, for lack of a better term. Abused by none other than certain vultures, errr, lawyers, of course. The "idea" of political correctness is still needed in the US.
What do you say to the existence of "Queer Studies Departments" in Universities.
It seems to me that the term 'Queer' has been close to re-appropriated by the Gay community, thus disempowering its negative power and replacing it as a positive term
Allthough I will admit the title seemed calculated to impact in a way caontrary to the content of his post . . .
And not only that . .. Grover has a cult of personality?!?
Note: I have EDITED my drawl post . . . but stick t my rights based on the rule of parody and satire
I will stick to my guns and state that the caricature revealed the sublimated tone of the original message!
California, as a state, has decided on this issue. The city of San Francisco is acting in opposition to the laws passed by the entire state.
But hey, lets have a win at any cost right?
It's called civil disobedience. Look into it. It's a hallmark of every great civil rights movement: non-violent protest that breaks a law that should be changed, but in a way that harms no one and destroys no property.
These two little old lesbians are Rosa Parks for our day and age.
It's called civil disobedience. Look into it. It's a hallmark of every great civil rights movement: non-violent protest that breaks a law that should be changed, but in a way that harms no one and destroys no property.
These two little old lesbians are Rosa Parks for our day and age.
Kirk
Yep, and I'm sure those little old lesbians had ancestors sweating in a cotton field under fear of whip to stay in their place as well.
The comparison is laughable. No one made these ladies sit on the back of the bus. There was never a "gay" drinking fountain, nor have they had to be served in the back of the store or restaurant.
The only "right" they have to pursue with regard to civil rights, is marriage because they never were denied any other rights. It is almost like making up issues to be repressed about.
Do I have to have a grievence myself in order to want our society to follow the rule of law instead of mob rule?
Nick
I would argue that allowing gay people to marry is more a question of admitting tolerance and addressing discrimination than 'mob rule', no matter how you choose to couch your argument.
Yep, and I'm sure those little old lesbians had ancestors sweating in a cotton field under fear of whip to stay in their place as well.
The comparison is laughable. No one made these ladies sit on the back of the bus. There was never a "gay" drinking fountain, nor have they had to be served in the back of the store or restaurant.
The only "right" they have to pursue with regard to civil rights, is marriage because they never were denied any other rights. It is almost like making up issues to be repressed about.
Nick
Screw you, Nick. I am sick of your shit. Now gays aren't oppressed? Gays are oppressed and repressed left and right in our backwards, religion-encrusted
Sure, we were never enslaved, but that doesn't mean that we are not victims of this society, that we have not be abused for no good reason, that we don't deserve to protest for equality, just like any other group trodden upon by the white, male, heterosexual majority.
I would argue that allowing gay people to marry is more a question of admitting tolerance and eliminating discrimination than 'mob rule' no matter how you choose to couch your argument.
The only concern Nick has is furthering his own conservative, heterosexist bigotry.
I would argue that allowing gay people to marry is more a question of admitting tolerance and addressing discrimination than 'mob rule', no matter how you choose to couch your argument.
If it is addressed via the law, then I totally agree. If we have protests, speeches, votes, and discussions to change the law, I totally agree. We could even have people peacefully arrested to show the ridiculousness of the law, and I would agree. If we have people ignore the law then that is mob rule.
I will stick to my guns and state that the caricature revealed the sublimated tone of the original message!
Mmmmkay... spewing a stereotype REALLY helps. Mutual respect for those you disagree with, my friend. 8) Until WE rent the Moscone center for AI forum members, we are all in essence, hidden behind these digital walls. <note to self: pfflam must be telepathic, be careful, because pfflam can understand tonal inflection from simple, typed ASCII characters> Maybe you should offer your services to the Govt?
Comments
Originally posted by running with scissors
is it a states rights issue or is it a civil rights issue? and how exactly does this effect you one way or the other, trump? is the government suddenly taking something away from you?
Do I have to have a grievence myself in order to want our society to follow the rule of law instead of mob rule?
Nick
Originally posted by BRussell
But the whole point of what they're doing is to challenge the law. They can't put it to the test unless people defy it. Perhaps the California Supreme Court, or even the US SC will overturn this law. Damn California Ballot measures.
And yet again conservatives back states' rights, but only when it is a means to reduce individual rights.
I didn't back state's rights. I have contended all along this will drive the issue to be federalize. I think anyone who claims this won't be federalized is being dishonest.
That being noted, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of those who declare that Massachusetts should be free to do what they want because of state's rights in one thread. While ignoring those very same rights in another thread. California has passed a law granting full domestic partnership registration and rights. We have also passed a law declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman. I find it humorous that those who are defending states rights don't care to defend them here.
I pointed out your catch 22 in another thread, and you rightly conceded that it was your own bias showing. Others should be so honest when admitting they only support federalizing or states rights on an issue by issue basis.
Nick
Originally posted by DMBand0026
I still can't agree with gay marriage. It's just not right. I don't like to see this happening.
[EDIT: removal of tobbacco chewin sounds, but continuation of parody] . . . That is right!! . . It Just isn't Right!! . . . and those African-Americans and European-Americans intermarrying, that just isn't right 'either!![/EDIT: removal of tobbacco chewin sounds]
[EDIT: Removal of spitting sounds]
Originally posted by pfflam
[TAWBACKEE CHEWIN] . . . That there is rawt!! . . It Just aint Rawt!! . . . and them colored and whites mixin aint no good t'either[/TAWBACKEE CHEWIN]
**nnnnnrahh--pphhthoey** <--sound O' Luggy
Do you ever make points anymore or just resort to caricatures?
You do this repeatedly. Associating someone repeatedly with a negative stereotype is a personal insult whether you care to admit it or not.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I didn't back state's rights. I have contended all along this will drive the issue to be federalize. I think anyone who claims this won't be federalized is being dishonest.
I wasn't trying to single you out, I was just making a general statement about how when conservatives say "more states' rights" they really mean "less individual rights." It just seems odd to me.
That being noted, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of those who declare that Massachusetts should be free to do what they want because of state's rights in one thread. While ignoring those very same rights in another thread. California has passed a law granting full domestic partnership registration and rights. We have also passed a law declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman. I find it humorous that those who are defending states rights don't care to defend them here.
In California, are those domestic partnership rights open to same-sex couples? I've read your views on this, and we're probably pretty close on this issue. You're not as conservative as other conservatives and I'm not as liberal as other liberals on this particular issue. I have very mixed feelings about opening marriage to gays. Maybe it's just lingering prejudice on my part. But marriage is a mixed legal and religious construct, and as long as that's the case, I think civil unions are the way to go.
I pointed out your catch 22 in another thread, and you rightly conceded that it was your own bias showing. Others should be so honest when admitting they only support federalizing or states rights on an issue by issue basis.
I remember that, but I wouldn't call it a bias as much as a political philosophy: states should be able to choose to increase individual rights beyond the national level, but they shouldn't be allowed to go in the other direction.
it is just too easy!
why go through all of the work that you go through . . . especially when, after watching the effects of your lengthy posts, I know that few attitudes will be changed.
Originally posted by BRussell
I wasn't trying to single you out, I was just making a general statement about how when conservatives say "more states' rights" they really mean "less individual rights." It just seems odd to me.
In California, are those domestic partnership rights open to same-sex couples? I've read your views on this, and we're probably pretty close on this issue. You're not as conservative as other conservatives and I'm not as liberal as other liberals on this particular issue. I have very mixed feelings about opening marriage to gays. Maybe it's just lingering prejudice on my part. But marriage is a mixed legal and religious construct, and as long as that's the case, I think civil unions are the way to go.
I remember that, but I wouldn't call it a bias as much as a political philosophy: states should be able to choose to increase individual rights beyond the national level, but they shouldn't be allowed to go in the other direction.
California's domestic partnership rights are only open to same sex couples as far as I know. I don't know if I would call my position conservative or liberal since my stance also desires to allow cohabitating couples to find a form of recognition that doesn't force them into "for life" legal commitments while also not making the law treat them as strangers before each other.
As for your "bias" thanks for clarifying it, but to me it is still a one way ticket and bias. At least it is a nice bias though.
Nick
c'mon groverat, don't give me that "toughen up" business. I'm neither out, latent or closeted. I grew up in an environment (not home) that was "two fisted" in the literal sense. I like to think I've become elightened since those times. That's an inflamatory title anyway you cut it. You are too intelligent to throw a cheapie like that up there. You know you have quite the cult of personality going on here. Good for you. Don't abuse it man.
I'll say that political correctness is out of control. That fact can't be denied. However, the idea of PC came out of a very serious need. It's basically been abused, not by the people, or group of people the concept of PC was intended to cover or protect, for lack of a better term. Abused by none other than certain vultures, errr, lawyers, of course. The "idea" of political correctness is still needed in the US.
Originally posted by hardhead
. . . .
What do you say to the existence of "Queer Studies Departments" in Universities.
It seems to me that the term 'Queer' has been close to re-appropriated by the Gay community, thus disempowering its negative power and replacing it as a positive term
Allthough I will admit the title seemed calculated to impact in a way caontrary to the content of his post . . .
And not only that . .. Grover has a cult of personality?!?
Note: I have EDITED my drawl post . . . but stick t my rights based on the rule of parody and satire
I will stick to my guns and state that the caricature revealed the sublimated tone of the original message!
Originally posted by trumptman
California, as a state, has decided on this issue. The city of San Francisco is acting in opposition to the laws passed by the entire state.
But hey, lets have a win at any cost right?
It's called civil disobedience. Look into it. It's a hallmark of every great civil rights movement: non-violent protest that breaks a law that should be changed, but in a way that harms no one and destroys no property.
These two little old lesbians are Rosa Parks for our day and age.
Kirk
Originally posted by Scott
None of these SF marriages are legal.
It wasn't legal for Rosa Parks to sit on that bus where she did, either. Good thing you weren't around then.
Originally posted by Kirkland
It's called civil disobedience. Look into it. It's a hallmark of every great civil rights movement: non-violent protest that breaks a law that should be changed, but in a way that harms no one and destroys no property.
These two little old lesbians are Rosa Parks for our day and age.
Kirk
Yep, and I'm sure those little old lesbians had ancestors sweating in a cotton field under fear of whip to stay in their place as well.
The comparison is laughable. No one made these ladies sit on the back of the bus. There was never a "gay" drinking fountain, nor have they had to be served in the back of the store or restaurant.
The only "right" they have to pursue with regard to civil rights, is marriage because they never were denied any other rights. It is almost like making up issues to be repressed about.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Do I have to have a grievence myself in order to want our society to follow the rule of law instead of mob rule?
Nick
I would argue that allowing gay people to marry is more a question of admitting tolerance and addressing discrimination than 'mob rule', no matter how you choose to couch your argument.
Originally posted by trumptman
Yep, and I'm sure those little old lesbians had ancestors sweating in a cotton field under fear of whip to stay in their place as well.
The comparison is laughable. No one made these ladies sit on the back of the bus. There was never a "gay" drinking fountain, nor have they had to be served in the back of the store or restaurant.
The only "right" they have to pursue with regard to civil rights, is marriage because they never were denied any other rights. It is almost like making up issues to be repressed about.
Nick
Screw you, Nick. I am sick of your shit. Now gays aren't oppressed? Gays are oppressed and repressed left and right in our backwards, religion-encrusted
Sure, we were never enslaved, but that doesn't mean that we are not victims of this society, that we have not be abused for no good reason, that we don't deserve to protest for equality, just like any other group trodden upon by the white, male, heterosexual majority.
Kirk
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I would argue that allowing gay people to marry is more a question of admitting tolerance and eliminating discrimination than 'mob rule' no matter how you choose to couch your argument.
The only concern Nick has is furthering his own conservative, heterosexist bigotry.
Originally posted by hardhead
Hey Jubelum, you had me going there for awhile...
Obviously you're kidding about taking my "hetero...men" comment personally. Right? You are kidding? Good one!
Always glad to get a smile... by any means necessary.
Originally posted by Kirkland
The only concern Nick has is furthering his own conservative, heterosexist bigotry.
Feel free to insult that which you don't understand. Fear is what you act on with your name calling.
Nick
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I would argue that allowing gay people to marry is more a question of admitting tolerance and addressing discrimination than 'mob rule', no matter how you choose to couch your argument.
If it is addressed via the law, then I totally agree. If we have protests, speeches, votes, and discussions to change the law, I totally agree. We could even have people peacefully arrested to show the ridiculousness of the law, and I would agree. If we have people ignore the law then that is mob rule.
Nick
Originally posted by pfflam
I will stick to my guns and state that the caricature revealed the sublimated tone of the original message!
Mmmmkay... spewing a stereotype REALLY helps. Mutual respect for those you disagree with, my friend. 8) Until WE rent the Moscone center for AI forum members, we are all in essence, hidden behind these digital walls. <note to self: pfflam must be telepathic, be careful, because pfflam can understand tonal inflection from simple, typed ASCII characters> Maybe you should offer your services to the Govt?
Originally posted by trumptman
Feel free to insult that which you don't understand. Fear is what you act on with your name calling.
Nick
Nick, will you marry me?
Um, on second thought...