equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[BVS]

That's a POOR analogy... try again.

It's baited and has no context. You're not very good at this.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by financeguy

What point have I missed? Martha is slurring and slandering her bete noire "white guys" again, and I am the only one that objects. I am fully entitled to object to that double standard, and call her out on it. I forgot that the left have a monopoly on taking offense.

While she may be painting with a pretty broad stroke, I think if you look at who was in power in the 60s, "white guys" would indeed describe the vast majority.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by BVS

You're not very good at this.

Lay off the personal jabs, BVS.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Lay off the personal jabs, BVS.

Can we at least be fair here:

Originally Posted by financeguy

Usual misandrist bullshit. One thing to bear in mind if you're trolling and casting claims of bigotry at others,

Here's where the personal jabs started, I won't comment on the rest...

[Diemen]

Yes, you're right, that is a personal jab too. Still no need to respond in kind.

[martha]

Originally Posted by Diemen

While she may be painting with a pretty broad stroke, I think if you look at who was in power in the 60s, "white guys" would indeed describe the vast majority.

And, nathan's a guy.

[martha]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Yes, you're right, that is a personal jab too.

They always are from him. Without exception. Usually nasty, pointless, out of context, and personal. Which is why I no longer acknowledge his existence. This post right now is the only exception I'll make.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by martha

And, nathan's a guy.

Yeah, but you're not.

[martha]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Yeah, but you're not.

I was making the point that he's a straight guy worried about the impact of granting another group rights that he already has, much like the same group of guys worried about the same issues with a different group. To be fair, the guys were in control back in the 60s, whether we liked it or not. Pointing that out may touch a nerve, but it doesn't make it any less true. Most, if not all, of the anti-gay rights posters in this thread are men, worried about some imagined "social context" of granting gays and lesbians full rights as Americans. Again, it may be an uncomfortable truth. Yes, there are many women in that crowd in the US, but here, they're guys.

If anyone can find me some examples of women leading the anti-civil rights movements in the 60s, I'll gladly retract any statements that somehow offend the men here, but most of them were men.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

so, separate but equal, then?

What's wrong with equal but different? Not different in a judgmental way but in a classificational way.

We fill out forms all the time that ask for race, gender and marital status.

Single
Married
Civil Union
Divorced
Widowed

Why would only the Civil Union be discriminatory?

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Single
Married
Civil Union
Divorced
Widowed

Why would only the Civil Union be discriminatory?

Because the other three things have nothing to do with what we're talking about? Because they're all legitimate statuses that anyone can have?

I mean, seriously, INDY (and AEON, et al.) ... what is the problem with gay marriage? Why do you want it to be a union and not a marriage? Is there some difference there that's important, some distinction that matters? Something I'm missing here? I mean, you wouldn't so vehemently be against gays being allowed to marry unless there was something really dangerous about it happening, right?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by BVS

That's what we should have told Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks...

How come you never mention Malcolm X (who was a black segregationist ), or Bobby Seale and Huey Newton of the Black Panthers, or Stokely Carmichael of the Black Power Movement.

There were some things (black-liberation, Marxism, Maoism) in the 60's civil rights movement that SHOULD have scared Americans back then. In fact, they STILL SHOULD scare Americans.

Was one automatically a racist if they fought against any concept, idea or action, put forth in the name of civil rights in the late sixties?

Are there any concepts, ideas or actions WE DID take or accept (with the best of intentions) that, in hindsight, now appear to have been a mistake?

[martha]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Are there any concepts, ideas or actions WE DID take or accept (with the best of intentions) that, in hindsight, now appear to have been a mistake?

Sounds like you might have some in mind. Could you share those with us?

[melon]

Originally Posted by martha

Sounds like you might have some in mind. Could you share those with us?

I'm thinking he regrets abolishing indentured servitude and expanding voting rights to non-property owning white men...

...hah.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

What's wrong with equal but different? Not different in a judgmental way but in a classificational way.

Why would only the Civil Union be discriminatory?

Right now a civil union is not equal to a marriage.

And just like the back of the bus might be on the same bus, it's not equal when you're forced to sit there. Remember that term you and and all those AM radio guys use, "freedom of choice"? Well you're being a hypocrite about it.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

How come you never mention Malcolm X (who was a black segregationist ), or Bobby Seale and Huey Newton of the Black Panthers, or Stokely Carmichael of the Black Power Movement.

Well maybe, here's a crazy idea I know, but maybe it's because I don't support segregation...

Whatever point you were trying to make, you failed.

[melon]

Originally Posted by INDY500

What's wrong with equal but different? Not different in a judgmental way but in a classificational way.

Because here's a novel concept: You never bothered to ask what gay people wanted. Instead, you're contented to force them into a classification against their will. If that's the case, then what's wrong with the "non-judgmental classification" of "negroes and coloreds" while we're at it?

[diamond]

Originally Posted by melon

If that's the case, then what's wrong with the "non-judgmental classification" of "negroes and coloreds" while we're at it?

Most African Americans disagree with this correlation.

In Calif 70% supported Prop 8, but they're probably the stupid ones, right?

<>

[BVS]

Originally Posted by diamond

Most African Americans disagree with this correlation.

In Calif 70% supported Prop 8, but they're probably the stupid ones, right?

<>

And the majority is always right... That's what American exceptionalism has taught us!!!

[melon]

Originally Posted by diamond

Most African Americans disagree with this correlation.

What African Americans think of gay people has as much relevance as what white people think of blacks. Neither has the right to impose their will over the civil rights of the other.