MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please - Page 30 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-09-2004, 11:06 AM   #436
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Mr. Jacoby is just trying to justify his hatred like any good bigot would.

It IS a civil rights issue--just as "the Creator" created male and female, we are just as "male and female" as everyone else, except we were created to love differently--and everytime religious bigots like him talk, they just make our case stronger. If I am not permitted to marry someday, then I will, frankly, take my talents elsewhere.

Melon
It may be a Civil Rights issue....and you and I may agree upon it, however, do you believe he has a point about the court making laws?

I strongly believe we need to work through the legislative branch to create a law that is not up to interpretation by a court. For example, the idea of acourt that can change its opinions over time. Without Legislation, there is no security in the courts decisions and your right to marry may be in jeaopardy some time in the future without the law on the books. Like the Civil Rights bill of 1875 for example.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 11:37 AM   #437
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:03 PM
One other thing.....

Disagree or not with Mr. Jacoby.....

Look at the way Civil Rights was botched for almost 100 years after the Civil War.

I do believe the legislation of the Johnson Administration is what put an end to it all, if I am not mistaken.

When the courts are making their decisions....you risk losing your rights. When it is defined constitutionally the court loses that ability.

Mr. Jacoby, may very well LEGALLY have a point. If you think he does, you need more than a court decision to protect your Civil Rights. Judges retire and get replaced.

This is no different than a woman's right to an abortion. That too is still on a pendulum.

I will go back to making my FEEBLE points.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 11:46 AM   #438
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Dread,


I believe the arguments do not wash.

In the 50s and 60s similar arguments were made about Civil Rights.


People were arrested and put in jail for breaking “laws.”


Many made the argument that “they” should be patient and wait for legislators to act. Laws would be changed in due time.



Sometime in the early 70s “Homosexuality” was declared not to be an “illness” by the WHO.


It is nothing but ignorance, and prejudice that permit otherwise reasonable people to support discrimination.


There were many “Religious” (chapter and verse) arguments made to support prohibition of mixed-race marriages.

If a Church wants to discriminate, let them.


Fanatics, like John Ashcroft, who has said, “America will have no King but Jesus, Jesus is King of America” (I paraphrase) can be a bigots in their hearts and minds.

They should have no more right to set the agenda than a “Shiite Mullah”.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 12:17 PM   #439
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:03 PM
The courts are there to do what our Legislature is too cowardly or bigoted to deal with.

I have generally lost faith in both the GOP and the Democratic Party. I only see the Democratic Party as a buffer for the vitriolic and asinine bigotry that pervade that small-minded GOP, although it, to a lesser degree, spills over into the spineless Dems.

They have certainly lost their courage that they once had in the 1960s, but I know what they fear. The Democratic Party has been in a tailspin ever since the South abandoned them over supporting civil rights. And, as such, they fear that doing the right thing again will affect them negatively, while the GOP can cowardly accept the wisdom of the Dems' foresight 10 years down the road and have no political repercussions.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 12:18 PM   #440
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Deep,

Thanks for the respectful response.

Anything short of laws and amendments will leave this issue up to the changes on the court. Civil Rights depended not just on the court but on legislation.

Again, look at abortion. Every presidential campaign we have to take into account who the president may appoint because the court can change its mind.

Working off of the will of the court ALONE is NOT going to protect anyones rights.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 12:45 PM   #441
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Civil Rights depended not just on the court but on legislation.
What you seem to be leaving out is the "Civil Disobedience" to unjust and immoral laws that forced? or pressured legislators and courts to act.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 03:27 PM   #442
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


What you seem to be leaving out is the "Civil Disobedience" to unjust and immoral laws that forced? or pressured legislators and courts to act.
I am not leaving it out. I am having a hard time understanding why you would think I am opposed to the civil disobedience though. Definitely that is a part of it.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 04:15 PM   #443
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Anything short of laws and amendments will leave this issue up to the changes on the court. Civil Rights depended not just on the court but on legislation.


Separate but equal was the Law of the Land.

Until Brown v. Board of Education, stated that separate is not equal.

Dread, no offense,but Boston is not known for "good race relations". That article was just bullshit, with some window dressing.


The 1875 Civil rights act however well written it may have been, did little to prevent institutionalized racism in this country.


Brown was the turning point followed up by legislation.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 05:30 PM   #444
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:03 PM
I think this pretty much explains why for days people sarcastically asked where the opposition was in this thread...And no one responds....because when someone does....they get SHIT on.

Deep, I wish I could follow how my response has brought about this history lesson. I suppose you think I am not aware of Brown V. the Board of Ed. Something I typed about in here two weeks ago.

And now you attack Boston...No offense...but I hate when people throw grenades around baiting others. And that is what that statement is.

The 1875 Civil Rights Act was important. It provided a law that Civil Rights could be argued from.
Institutionalized Racsism was permitted by the Supreme Court by helping perpetuate Separate But Equal.

It proves my point. There needs to be more than a COURT decision to secure civil rights.

So much for repsectful discussion.



__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 06:13 PM   #445
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 02:03 PM
[moderator]
Totally beside the point, I stand by my decision to merge this into the gay marriage thread. When an article that is about gay marriage is posted and there is already a very recent thread on the subject (i.e. still on the first or second page), it is common practice to merge.

People are free to believe as they like about this issue. If people have stopped reading the thread because they are in the minority on the issue, none of us can help that.
[/moderator]

[pax speaking as herself]
I thought the guy who wrote the article sounded like a pompous ass.


[/pax speaking as herself]
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 06:18 PM   #446
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 02:03 PM
To all parties: Take a deep breath.

Deep: Maybe you want to back up what you're saying about Boston and race relations.

Dread: That said, I don't think Deep meant any disrespect.

This discussion has gone on for a long time and has mostly gone well. Let's keep up that record. This is an issue that people feel passionately about.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 06:19 PM   #447
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
If people have stopped reading the thread because they are in the minority on the issue, none of us can help that.
Dread's point is that those who express a minority viewpoint (as measured by FYM) are subject to various forms of attack. That CAN be helped.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 06:24 PM   #448
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
[moderator]
Totally beside the point, I stand by my decision to merge this into the gay marriage thread. When an article that is about gay marriage is posted and there is already a very recent thread on the subject (i.e. still on the first or second page), it is common practice to merge.

People are free to believe as they like about this issue. If people have stopped reading the thread because they are in the minority on the issue, none of us can help that.
[/moderator]

[pax speaking as herself]
I thought the guy who wrote the article sounded like a pompous ass.


[/pax speaking as herself]
BVS speaking to moderator:
I think it's ashame if some have stopped reading this thread, but I think you're right to keep it all in one thread. I personally don't understand why anyone would stop reading the thread because of that reason.

BVS speaking to pax:
I agree, his underlining attitude I found to be very distasteful.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 06:38 PM   #449
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 02:03 PM
I don't think either side in this argument has a franchise on attack or being attacked. People have been spoken to--and not always publicly, keep in mind, sometimes we address things in chat or via PM--when they get out of line.

Speaking for me and how I moderate, I try to keep an open mind. I admit that I am not a perfect mod, and neither are any of the other mods. Regarding this thread specifically, and speaking only for myself, I think I have tried to step in when people were getting personal on either side of the issue. I have asked people nicely to ask other people things nicely. It's only been Ange and I involved in this thread, mostly, and I think mostly we've left the discussion to its own devices. But at the end of the day, if you'd rather not participate in the thread, then that's ultimately your choice. The mods cannot be here 24-7 and we cannot address everything, nor should we be asked to. We frequently remind EVERYONE to mind their manners.

One last point: mods are people too. We are human beings, not software that scans for nasty words and ad hominem fallacious attacks. We feel ways on certain issues, and I already had to cut a whole paragraph out of my response here because I felt I was getting too personal. It's damn hard, albeit necessary, to defend people with whom you do not agree and who have very powerful allies in larger society. I feel sometimes like I'm defending President Bush himself--which, in real life outside this forum, I would never do.

To everyone, then: Think before you speak. Make my job, and the job of all the mods, easier. Think of what you're asking us to do. And if you have a problem with something we do, like merging a thread, ask us via PM or e-mail.

Thanks.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 03-09-2004, 06:43 PM   #450
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Dread's point is that those who express a minority viewpoint (as measured by FYM) are subject to various forms of attack. That CAN be helped.
Whereas I've seen some personal attacks in this forum, from both sides. I think a lot, not all, but a lot of these accusasions of attack that I've seen in here are completely unwarranted. Personal attacks, name calling, etc. shouldn't be tolerated. But from what I've seen in here I've seen a lot of people claiming to be attacked because someone would refute the others point and that person couldn't back up what they stated. I'm sorry but I'm one that believes that if you come in here and make a statement you should be prepared to back it up, that's how debate works. Now I've seen where the discussion rises to an argument, but it still doesn't deserve to be called an attack. I believe that the discussions should remain civil, but with as many blanket statements and people not backing up anything with solid reasoning, it's hard for some not to turn up the heat, this is a passionate subject. But is it an attack, I don't believe so. There has been very little true and solid reasoning backing up GW Bush's and the Rights claim that Gay marriage would destroy the sanctity of marriage that stand with the law. Asking for answers to some of those questions and asking for clarifications don't warrant a claim of attack. Like I said this goes for both sides...

That's just my .02
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com