It's not a "right" if such a right requires someone else to do something for you to make it a right for you. I.E. "welfare" is not a right if someone else is made to pay for it, and a "job" is not a right if someone else must create and offer that job to you. Anyhow, I'm not sure what "civil rights" even mean. If it requires or demands someone else do something for YOU, it's not a right. When someone else does something for another, that's a priviledge, not a right. A "right" should not demand something be done by or enslave another to make it so, that would be taking away freedom from another.

Originally posted by Divinorumus
It's not a "right" if such a right requires someone else to do something for you to make it a right for you. I.E. "welfare" is not a right if someone else is made to pay for it, and a "job" is not a right if someone else must create and offer that job to you. Anyhow, I'm not sure what "civil rights" even mean. If it requires or demands someone else do something for YOU, it's not a right. When someone else does something for another, that's a priviledge, not a right. A "right" should not demand something be done by or enslave another to make it so, that would be taking away freedom from another.

I understand the tenet - but with that logic how about gays getting married?

How about full sex scenes on TV?

How about smoking a joint on your front porch?

Where is the line???

Originally posted by The Bald Champion
I understand the tenet - but with that logic how about gays getting married?

Any two willing people should be able to form a union. Doing so does not place a demand upon me or another or society that isn't already there. The screw up in this particular issue is someone made it a "gay" issue. It should be a "freedom" issue for ALL! If they would only dropped the "gay" slant on this "union" issue, I'm sure it would pass. I would even get behind that cause and approach. There are many advantages of a "union" that we ALL could benefit from, not just "bed buddies."

Originally posted by Divinorumus

Originally posted by The Bald Champion
I understand the tenet - but with that logic how about gays getting married?

Any two willing people should be able to form a union. Doing so does not place a demand upon me or another or society that isn't already there. The screw up in this particular issue is someone made it a "gay" issue. It should be a "freedom" issue for ALL! If they would only dropped the "gay" slant on this "union" issue, I'm sure it would pass. I would even get behind that cause and approach. There are many advantages of a "union" that we ALL could benefit from, not just "bed buddies."

In general I agree with you...

I think the freedom approach is a good point. I think this issue could be resolved
very easily if terms did not infringe on the process.

Originally posted by The Bald Champion


YES I am serious...

Did conservatives ( not Republicans ) stand for or against civil right for AA citizens?

or

Did liberals ( not Democrats ) stand for or against civil rights?

A very difficult question to answer because party names changed over the year, parties arose and died and merged, and so forth.

HOWEVER... to give a very simplistic answer... conservatives are the ones who push to keep the "status quo." If there is a king, the conservatives don't want a new form of government... they want the king.

Liberals can become conservatives.

Our founding fathers gave the vote ONLY to landholding white males of "adult age." This was a loosening of the English rules ... so they were nasty liberals. But if any sector of the population does NOT have the same rights as the others then they (and the liberals) will say "why not?"

There are very few "pure liberals" and "pure conservatives." A conservative might not like liberal views but might support marriage rights for same sex couples. A liberal might not like conservative views but may be against abortion.

The person was making the assertion that LIBERALS were against the civil rights movement in the 60's.

I make the assertion that the civil rights movement was a LIBERAL movement.

You are correct. I was there, and we were called "dirty liberal pinko commies" for wanting "those people" to be able to eat at the same restaurants, go to the same schools, get the same medical care that we got.

MLK was a republican yes.

Yes, and I also believe (if memory serves) he was conservative in his viewpoints. Remember that he was a preacher and very religious Christians tend to be more conservative than others (he didn't, for example, agree with the hippies (who supported him and civil rights.) -- they were into free love and other things that he would not have supported.)

So, while he started the movement and it was supported by other Black Conservatives and liberals, it was the White liberals who also turned out and risked their lives in marches and demonstrations. Moderates of all stripe also eventually came to support it.

The conservatives supported (I'm not kidding) the actions of the KKK and the John Birch Society... groups that I grew to loathe for their views and their tactics. Some conservatives supported the bombings of Black churches that led to the deaths of children and supported the killing of White activists who dared to march with and support King -- anything to keep the Blacks "in their proper place."

So... liberals and moderates and some conservatives supported it. Very Right Wing Unpleasant Conservatives were against it.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Just in support of what mrwupy has said; we should remember that not everything is always as it appears.

California is predominantly a Liberal-Democrat stronghold, yet they passed Prop 8 with a large margin.

There is little doubt that many Liberals voted in favor of Prop 8 and banning Gay Marriage.

Sometimes it is just the issues that define the voters and not the other way around.

Yup I can't doubt that...

Liberals are not very good at group stances and action... like herding cats.