incyr and resk have asked me to share my feelings about Proposition 8 in California. My quick response was that I have mixed feelings and am on the fence. They asked for more
( Read more... )
Re: hateful rantshad_0November 11 2008, 20:43:12 UTC
YOU F*CKING @$$HOLE! YOU ARE DEAD TO ME!
(I hope you realize that this is a feeble attempt to inject humor into a serious issue. No actual offense intended.)
Whether you agree or not, there are many that believe that the traditional marriage and traditional family is best for our society and thus believe that our government should give financial benefits to help and encourage such families. If the general populace does not believe that their money should go to financial benefits for a homosexual union, I believe they have that right to legislate that.One of the main problems I have with this conclusion is that it means it is acceptable for a majority to discriminate against a minority. Which, in my view, it is simply not. Individuals can make their own choices -- voting with their pocketbook, as the saying goes -- but when the government gives benefits it is generally required to do so even-handedly
( ... )
Re: hateful rantikkarus01November 11 2008, 21:16:32 UTC
"Separate but equal" always strikes me as such a bs line. It makes no sense. If they are equal, why are they separated? If they are separated, how are they equal?
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 11 2008, 21:36:45 UTC
My left speaker is separate from my right speaker. But both are equally important, even though they may both carry different signals. Separate, even different, but equal in purpose, and equally necessary to produce stereo sound.
Your left nut and right nut are separate, but equally important, and equally tender when kicked.
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 11 2008, 22:00:00 UTC
that may be how it's used by some people, that is not the intent of its meaning.
Men and Women are separate but equal. Each have different abilities, different strengths, some are shared, others are not. Those abilities have no bearing on their equality of inalienable human rights. Separate but equal. Applications of those abilities for the most part can be shared, but there are some applications that one is either better than the other, if the other can even do it at all. Yet those applications have no bearing on their equality of inalienable human rights. Separate but equal.
My speakers are separate. They perform slightly different tasks. But they are equal in necessity for the final product. Separate but equal does indeed exist without the "guilt for treating one group better than another".
Re: hateful rantincyrNovember 11 2008, 23:31:45 UTC
I think you're missing the point of "separate but equal." Yes, men & women are separate and equal, but we afford them the same rights. We don't have a set of laws devoted to the treatment of women, and a second set to the treatment of men. They are both accorded the same rights under the same laws.
Same with Blacks. We used to have separate sets of laws for them, but that was the whole point of striking down "separate but equal" - you can't have two sets of laws for two different groups of people. They're all just people, and should all have the same basic rights and privileges accorded to every other person.
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 12 2008, 00:09:32 UTC
Sure. So when it comes to voting about a social, moral issue, everyone has the same right to vote how they feel led. That's everyone's right. And with any law, one person's right is another's chain. It's always going to be like that. So, the problem is in deciding whether a certain definition constitutes an inalienable right, or whether it is solely a societal instution afforded by majority support. If the former, it will be rescinded and gay marriage will be reinstituted. If the latter, the vote will stand
( ... )
Re: hateful rantshad_0November 12 2008, 07:52:52 UTC
Pointless digression, containing information that you probably already know even as a Canadian:
The United States Supreme Court established the doctrine of "separate but equal" in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson. There the Court upheld racial segregation as permissible, with "separate" facilities (transportation facilities in that case) for each race, so long as the separate facilities were "equal." The Court found no unconstitutional discrimination in such "separate but equal" facilities.
Almost sixty years later, in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court finally overturned the doctrine of "separate but equal," holding that separate facilities (educational facilities in that case) based on race were unconstitutional because they could never be truly "equal":
To separate them [students] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be
( ... )
Re: hateful rantikkarus01November 12 2008, 14:07:11 UTC
How would you not be offensively imposing your morality on others by voting "yes" on something like this? You are saying, in essence, "my religion says that what you are doing is wrong, and thus I will not allow you to do it, regardless of your own personal beliefs on the matter." That sounds like an imposition to me.
I can understand not wanting to vote "no" on this kind of thing if you have a strong moral objection to gay marriage. Fine. I get that. What I don't get is how voting "yes" is anything other than imposing that morality on others. Better to not vote at all, I think.
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 12 2008, 14:33:28 UTC
the difference between me strapping you down and forcing you to do something you don't want to do, versus me exercise my government granted right to vote with my conscience. If you tell me I shouldn't put my vote in, make my voice be heard, then buddy, neither can you. I wouldn't be forcing anyone to do anything. I'd be exercising a legal right. IF the decision in question is NOT something that should be decided by the people, the system will fix it. IF it is, then I have just as much right to vote with my conscience as you do yours on the matter. Neither of our votes affects each other - both of our votes affect what we'd like the rest of our society to be able to do or not. Every law is restrictive to someone. Voting on a law that prohibits someone is not "forcing your morality on someone" - the government decides if it will honor the voting public on the matter or overrule it is unconstitutional. It's not the same as me holding you as a slave to my morality or oppressing in any manner at all.
Re: hateful rantikkarus01November 12 2008, 14:45:19 UTC
You can't have your cake and eat it too, here. You don't get to say that you are "voting with your conscience" but you are not "forcing your morality on anyone." If you vote "yes" on something like this then yes, you are attempting to force your morality on other people through the law. That vote may be guided by your good intentions and a real desire to do the "right" thing, but you are still trying to make someone else conform to your view of morality when they clearly do not wish to do so.
You want to vote your conscience, then fine. That's great. But don't pretend that what you are doing is a noble act. It is an imposition of your beliefs over someone else's, even when you think you're right.
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 12 2008, 14:52:45 UTC
EVERYONE who votes on whether a law should be enacted or not is, by your definition, 'forcing their morality on everyone'. No, exercising your right to due process and voting on what the government considers a matter the people decide, is most certainly a valid right. And if you don't think the people should decide, or you don't think the government should decide, then you fight the ruling. And that's precisely what the No's are doing at this moment.
That vote may be guided by your good intentions and a real desire to do the "right" thing, but you are still trying to make someone else conform to your view of morality when they clearly do not wish to do so.
Ditto.
don't pretend that what you are doing is a noble act. It is an imposition of your beliefs over someone else's, even when you think you're right.
Re: hateful rantikkarus01November 12 2008, 14:56:57 UTC
Yes, I know. And I agree. Everyone voting is trying to force their own morality on someone else. That's what I'm saying.
I'm just pointing out that the only way you can actually say you are NOT doing that is by staying out of it entirely and not voting. You were saying that you'd vote yes, but somehow still believe you weren't forcing your morality on others. I called bullshit on that.
(I hope you realize that this is a feeble attempt to inject humor into a serious issue. No actual offense intended.)
Whether you agree or not, there are many that believe that the traditional marriage and traditional family is best for our society and thus believe that our government should give financial benefits to help and encourage such families. If the general populace does not believe that their money should go to financial benefits for a homosexual union, I believe they have that right to legislate that.One of the main problems I have with this conclusion is that it means it is acceptable for a majority to discriminate against a minority. Which, in my view, it is simply not. Individuals can make their own choices -- voting with their pocketbook, as the saying goes -- but when the government gives benefits it is generally required to do so even-handedly ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Your left nut and right nut are separate, but equally important, and equally tender when kicked.
Reply
"Separate but equal" is a made up phrase to avoid guilt for treating one group better than another.
Reply
Men and Women are separate but equal. Each have different abilities, different strengths, some are shared, others are not. Those abilities have no bearing on their equality of inalienable human rights. Separate but equal. Applications of those abilities for the most part can be shared, but there are some applications that one is either better than the other, if the other can even do it at all. Yet those applications have no bearing on their equality of inalienable human rights.
Separate but equal.
My speakers are separate. They perform slightly different tasks. But they are equal in necessity for the final product.
Separate but equal does indeed exist without the "guilt for treating one group better than another".
Reply
Same with Blacks. We used to have separate sets of laws for them, but that was the whole point of striking down "separate but equal" - you can't have two sets of laws for two different groups of people. They're all just people, and should all have the same basic rights and privileges accorded to every other person.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
The United States Supreme Court established the doctrine of "separate but equal" in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson. There the Court upheld racial segregation as permissible, with "separate" facilities (transportation facilities in that case) for each race, so long as the separate facilities were "equal." The Court found no unconstitutional discrimination in such "separate but equal" facilities.
Almost sixty years later, in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court finally overturned the doctrine of "separate but equal," holding that separate facilities (educational facilities in that case) based on race were unconstitutional because they could never be truly "equal":
To separate them [students] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I can understand not wanting to vote "no" on this kind of thing if you have a strong moral objection to gay marriage. Fine. I get that. What I don't get is how voting "yes" is anything other than imposing that morality on others. Better to not vote at all, I think.
Reply
I wouldn't be forcing anyone to do anything. I'd be exercising a legal right. IF the decision in question is NOT something that should be decided by the people, the system will fix it. IF it is, then I have just as much right to vote with my conscience as you do yours on the matter. Neither of our votes affects each other - both of our votes affect what we'd like the rest of our society to be able to do or not. Every law is restrictive to someone. Voting on a law that prohibits someone is not "forcing your morality on someone" - the government decides if it will honor the voting public on the matter or overrule it is unconstitutional. It's not the same as me holding you as a slave to my morality or oppressing in any manner at all.
Reply
You want to vote your conscience, then fine. That's great. But don't pretend that what you are doing is a noble act. It is an imposition of your beliefs over someone else's, even when you think you're right.
Reply
No, exercising your right to due process and voting on what the government considers a matter the people decide, is most certainly a valid right. And if you don't think the people should decide, or you don't think the government should decide, then you fight the ruling. And that's precisely what the No's are doing at this moment.
That vote may be guided by your good intentions and a real desire to do the "right" thing, but you are still trying to make someone else conform to your view of morality when they clearly do not wish to do so.
Ditto.
don't pretend that what you are doing is a noble act. It is an imposition of your beliefs over someone else's, even when you think you're right.
Ditto.
That's the nature of the vote.
Reply
I'm just pointing out that the only way you can actually say you are NOT doing that is by staying out of it entirely and not voting. You were saying that you'd vote yes, but somehow still believe you weren't forcing your morality on others. I called bullshit on that.
Reply
Leave a comment