It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Todeskopf
In the debate I point out that only 3 years ago Alabama had a law stopping interracial marriages
As a resident of said State I guess I should point out that this is one of those laws that was just "left on the books" its not like anyone was prosecuted for interracial marriage...it was kind of like these I found from DumbLaws.Com from New York State:
A person may not walk around on Sundays with an ice cream cone in his/her pocket.
While riding in an elevator, one must talk to no one, and fold his hands while looking toward the door.
Slippers are not to be worn after 10:00 P.M.
[Edited on 12-4-2004 by Todeskopf]
My whole problem with this scenario is, people shouldn't have to ask you, or anyone else, for rights. They should always be allowed to do what they want, as long as it's not harmful to others. That's freedom, isn't it? You shouldn't have to get permission to be who or what you want to be. If that's society's role, then I say # SOCIETY! They can kiss my ass, as far as I'm concerned. Of course, I never cared for society anyway. For the most part, they're dumb asses whom I want nothing to do with. Yet, they insist on inflicting their silly closed minded beliefs upon me, never realizing that, even though they may be the majority, they're fools. Live and let live. That's what it's all about. Until people can understand that, this is always going to be a fuctup country and/or world.
Originally posted by CazMedia
Gay people can self determine they want to be gay all day and night, but what makes this ok to DEMMAND accomodations based on their self determinations, and then point the finger and call people in the majority names because the answer was no to their request?
Originally posted by CazMedia
UBER,
THIS IS TOTALLY ABOUT A CULTURES RIGHTS OF SELF DETERMINATION, NOT SELF DETERMINATION.
Are you saying that a minorities abillity to ask its culture/society for more acceptance/accomodations is MORE IMPORTANT than the cultures rights of majority concensus?
Gay people can self determine they want to be gay all day and night, but what makes this ok to DEMMAND accomodations based on their self determinations, and then point the finger and call people in the majority names because the answer was no to their request?
Take ANY issue, Issue X......Mega-culture is debating if to adopt issue X as policy. Issue X was proposed by 20% of the population. Mega-culture, thru democratic processes gets a 60% no determination on this issue X, and so they decline to implement issue X.
ITS NOT ABOUT THE WHAT YOUR ASKING FOR....it does not matter if you insert gay marriage, murder, drug use or anything as ISSUE X....The reality of the situation is that you have a democratic republic, being asked by a minority, to make an adjustment to its cultural base. IS THIS NOT THE CASE??
Trying to say gay marriage is more important that the overall society just shows i was right about the "GIVE ME GIVE ME GIVE ME" approach...the one that tries to equate a culture thats not activly trying to do anything to add restrictions/oppression to people being gay or the resulting behaivior or activities, to one that upholds slavery.
For you to say that ALL SOCIETY is bigoted is a fallicy of logic. We wouldnt be getting along here as good as we are if everything was bigoted...and no compromises were made.
Why is everyone that doesnt agree with gay marriage a biggot?
Why arent those in the minority that are the ones pushing and shoving this into the spotlight against the wishes of the majority biggots too? after all, they expouse the same intolerance of the majority?
Notice i didnt use god, morality, good/evil? Notice im not saying dont be gay, or gays get out, or any other such nonsence...
Im just looking at basic civics 101, and wondering why sociology has been tossed aside?
As far as your assertion that there is oppression vs gays, YES there is and are some examples of "gay bashing" but i do not see a concerted effort by even a minority of people to persecute/restrice/or cause grief to any gays. There is no ground swell to make gays go away, hide or other crap. We mostly see an attitude that what you do in your bedroom is none of our business, and therefore none of societies business either.
Your say that; me saying no to your request is equal to throwing a brick thru your window, or scrawling hateful graffiti? What a way to overhype your opression.
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Remember that all this sillyness came from the statement I made in regards to being married is not a right, but rather a recognition.
_______________
A recognition by a religion, right? Whose religion? It seems like you think the judeo/christian religion is the only one that counts; the Church of the Gay Union is hocus-pocus, in your words.
Intolerant:
1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.
You sure sound intolerant to me.
______________________
Quote by KJ:
I made no claims other than that.
SO, when you brought something up, I clarified. Where's the deflection considering YOU brough it up?
As for the Episcopalian faith, they have degrated the faith of Christianity in that homosexuality is not allowed.
There is nothing hypocritical or intolerant about any of what I said, so why don't you try backing up your claims while you make them.
Originally posted by CazMedia
JSOBECKY
Discrimination is LEGAL! A given society must discriminate in order to define itself. All freedoms and no rules/responsabillity = ANARCHY.
We have laws that descrimate based on age, (Retirement, child labor)....The right to association (yes you can legally have a black only scholorship, or a men's only golf club, no gays/girls in the boy scouts ect)...this is related to the right to be left alone.....or not to be forced by others that do not share in your groups core beliefs. We discriminate based on immigration status. If you are not a citizen, you dont have the same rights as citizens do. Some pay more/less/no taxes based on their income...Bottom line on #1...a culture has the right to set its "boundaries" in order to define itself. This being a democratic republic, on most things the majority rule is in effect. Anyone ever say "life isnt fair" before? Lots of things arent fair or balanced in the world, deal with it. (within the appropriate channels....hint hint judges trying to legislate) This is not to say things dont change, but why are gays suprised that theve met resistance on an issue that hit near the core of how America has been defined for 250 yrs?
Originally posted by jsobecky
Try to deny a man a job because he is black. Or atheist. See how far you get. That's exactly what you're trying to do.
Originally posted by jsobecky
A recognition by a religion, right? Whose religion? It seems like you think the judeo/christian religion is the only one that counts; the Church of the Gay Union is hocus-pocus, in your words.
I was talking about it being a recognition by the government, not a religion. The government recognizes the religious union (although it has gained a governmental dynamic, i.e. state unions). I didn't say judeo/christian religion is the only one that counts, you did. The church of the gay union (which is not real as far as I have seen, and I looked) IS a hocus pocus (the opposite would be established) because there is a need so POOF, there it is. It would only be used to get around the words of law, nothing more.
Intolerant:
1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.
You sure sound intolerant to me.
Intolerant? No
Unaccepting? Yes
And thanks, but I know what the word means. Don't preconceive my opinion from a few sentences.
______________________
Quote by KJ:
I made no claims other than that.
SO, when you brought something up, I clarified. Where's the deflection considering YOU brough it up?
As for the Episcopalian faith, they have degrated the faith of Christianity in that homosexuality is not allowed.
There is nothing hypocritical or intolerant about any of what I said, so why don't you try backing up your claims while you make them.
Originally posted by Satyr
Then yeah, it's going to be a big deal, but only if the person can prove I ever said it in the first place. There are no laws against discrimination. There are only laws against making it obvious.
Originally posted by CazMedia
JSOBECKY
Most of the examples i cited are at the FEDERAL level, and in fact most do NOT concern safety at all...
What does income base for taxing (economic discrimination) have to do with safety? or retirement bennifits (age based) have to do with safety?
As far as child labor laws, yes they were IN PART about safety, but also an effort to open up jobs to ADULTS in order to lower the unemployment rate during the depression.
The ACT of discrimiation is nessisary in order to set parameters...in order to tell one thing from another, and give defintion betwen things/ideas....
Its how and why this tool is used that becomes problematic. Yes this act can be misused, but this doesnt mean it should not exist.
Intolerance on this issue goes both ways...
majority too intolorant to become moreinclusive,
and the minority too intolorant of the majorities beliefs and cultural practices to see anything other than oppression.
Originally posted by CazMedia
How can we as a society engage people to become more involved not less? You are not alone in this feeling.
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
What? No commentary from the peanut gallery Jso?
I guess my last post cleared up all your misunderstandings.
Originally posted by jsobecky
_____________
No, it's just that you're twisting your words. You know, but won't admit, that you do not hold the Church of the Gay Union as a valid church. Therefore you are intolerant.
Um, ok I looked chief, and I have found no such thing as the Church of the Gay Union, so obviously it would be "hocus pocus" because it would be established to get around the rules. If it DOES exist, then how about you show it to me rather than throwing it out again and again. Not knowing is not intolerant. You confuse the issue.
Sort of like calling someone a hypocrite because they're divorced, KJ, when they want to talk about marriage.
Was that you? You still mad about that? Nevertheless, you confuse the issue again. I don't recall calling them a hypocrite, so you should probably get a quote since it's plainly on the site and within your reach.
Sort of like telling them that you think it's funny that they are trying to talk about marriage even though they screwed everything up in their own marriage (your assessment, not their admittance, even though you don't know a thing about them).
It was funny, was it not? Although you are twisting it to suit your purpose like you so like to do. I said that it was funny that someone who was divorced was talking about MANDITORY MARRIAGE. The whole idea was ridiculous to me and didn't even warrant serious thought. The weirdness of it all was exacerbated by the fact that it came from someone who did not live up to his vows (which by the way is an honest assessment, but I am sure you'll take it badly).
Sort of like taking a cheap shot, something I had thought was not your style.
Get my drift, KJ?
Cheap shot eh? I don't consider it a cheap shot. Perhaps an easy and obvious one, but not cheap. You set yourself up (if it was you). Consider this. Do you think people would not find humor in saying that military service should be mandatory for all people, only the person who said it was punitively discharged from the military for failure to live up to the commitment he made?
But yeah, I get your drift. Assumption is the mother of all #ups friend.
____________
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Originally posted by jsobecky
But yeah, I get your drift. Assumption is the mother of all #ups friend.
____________