Another glorious win for the homo-phobes?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by miraja2

The ridiculous thing about the way the administration has handled DADT is that it isn't like they are just too cowardly to go against public opinion (at least on this issue) because poll after poll suggests that the majority of Americans favor allowing people who are homosexual to serve in the military.
I don't know what their exact reason might be, but whatever it is, it is ridiculous, not to mention a complete reversal on a campaign pledge.

obama said they didn't have time to fool with DADT, as the economy was on the front burner. funny, that all went out the window when he leaped on health care with both feet! there's more to that story as to why he won't fool with it-but the excuse of having other things to fool with is b.s. imo.

[GenuineRisk]

This is a very good example of why rule by simple majority is not infallible. If civll rights for blacks had been left to the American voters, we'd have seen segregation laws last into the 1980's. Hell, they'd still have them in Georgia.

[Danzig]

it's not supposed to be majority rule. the will of the people isn't supposed to supercede the constitution. if the majority voted to get rid of the press, do you really think that would happen? so why should civil rights only be permitted to some? it's simple-they're not supposed to be. all are created equal is supposed to mean just that.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's not supposed to be majority rule. the will of the people isn't supposed to supercede the constitution. .

it does in Chicago and some suburbs where it's illegal for a homeowner to have a handgun INSIDE their own home.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

it does in Chicago and some suburbs where it's illegal for a homeowner to have a handgun INSIDE their own home.

just another bone of contention with me. a perfect example of poor thinking. how often have you heard 'i'm willing to give up some rights if it makes me safer'. how taking a gun from a law abiding citizen will lessen crime i don't know. and like in d.c., if someone took it to court, it most likely wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's not supposed to be majority rule. the will of the people isn't supposed to supercede the constitution. if the majority voted to get rid of the press, do you really think that would happen? so why should civil rights only be permitted to some? it's simple-they're not supposed to be. all are created equal is supposed to mean just that.

Yeah.... but the response from these nutjobs is that there is already equality- any gay person can get married; he or she just has to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I agree with you- the will of the majority should not be used to supersede the rights of a minority, but then I'm not on the side of those who wail about so-called "activist judges." (What does that even mean, besides, "a judge who makes a decision I personally disagree with?")

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Yeah.... but the response from these nutjobs is that there is already equality- any gay person can get married; he or she just has to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I agree with you- the will of the majority should not be used to supersede the rights of a minority, but then I'm not on the side of those who wail about so-called "activist judges." (What does that even mean, besides, "a judge who makes a decision I personally disagree with?")

The right has been crying about "activist judges" since they didn't get their way in Brown v. Board of Education.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by miraja2

The right has been crying about "activist judges" since they didn't get their way in Brown v. Board of Education.

Take a moment, and think about about that "activist" label. They are pretty clever. What they are saying there is that they think their favorite bigot authors got it right. They agree with those White bigots that set up the country. It's no wonder that they want to follow that plan, and make very few changes. Notice that? They paint you a witch for wanting to mess with it. It takes over 50% of the vote for you to keep them from outlawing Gay marriage. How much of the vote did they need to keep Obama from doing what you agree with? Ohhhh!! Noooo. Not 51%. Oh, no. That somehow got to be 41%. They only need 41% to stop him. Now, Brian is frustrated at Oba for not helping his gay supporters. Now, why do you think Oba can't help the young man? O.K., goes back to them only needing 41% to fk with him. Now, who was it that decided that? Oh, it's their favorite authors. See that? Such infallible designers they were. They decided to give all these white trash states the same number of senators as the civilized states (2.) See that? They give Alabama 2 senators, and a much bigger (and more civilized) state also only gets 2 senators. So, Alabama, and Pennsylvania have very different population numbers. If a small population has the same power (in the senate) as a large population, then don't you think you've doubled or tripled the power of the people in that White Trash state of Alabama ?.....Uh, yep. Now you see why they love them folks that wrote this design. Now, once you've done that (given neck people 2 or 3 times the representation in the senate as civilized people,) you then only make the necks get 41% of the senate to fk up Oba. If you do the math on that, Oba is being held hostage by as little as what? 30% of the voters? Just so happens that those 30% don't like Gay Marriage. That's why that brotha is watching Basketball on T.V., instead of looking like he cares whether Gay Marriage is legal in Maine (something he probably is actually all for.) Our system is designed to heavily favor country-time folks. You can elect all the Progressive Brothas you want, but they will always have to overcome the wishes of the 30% trash in this country (they have a built-in advantage.) This trash will always have more say than you. If that's the way it feels, it's because that's the way it is. Believe me, those Tea baggers from Bama, Tennessee etc. have a bigger voice in this than you or myself. It's exactly the opposite of the sht they say. They are way over represented. I think this is one of the reasons minorities think there is so much prejudice at work. Just look how much representation (in the senate) white people in Montana have versus Urban Black voters in the big cities of this country. Who designed that? It was designed by (or certainly for) the Southern States. That's how they got them to join the Union. That's an unfair fkd-up design, and that's why this country will always be held hostage by the same fkn trash (designed that way.) If you don't think so, get a pair of pliers. Find any piece of cheap metal faucet pipe. Pinch it. Does it matter that the rest of the pipe is clear, n' wide? No, the only thing that matters is that it's pinched down at one point. That's Oba's problem (the senate is that pinch where 30% of the voters get to have the same power as the other 70% of the voters.) People are brainwashed to think this is a fair country. It certainly is not, but look who bitches the most on here. It's the 30% who already have the power equal to the other 70%. They should shut the f up, n' thank their lucky stars.

[Danzig]

not all doom and despair...


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1257...hatsNewsSecond

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Take a moment, and think about about that "activist" label. They are pretty clever. What they are saying there is that they think their favorite bigot authors got it right. They agree with those White bigots that set up the country. It's no wonder that they want to follow that plan, and make very few changes. Notice that? They paint you a witch for wanting to mess with it. It takes over 50% of the vote for you to keep them from outlawing Gay marriage. How much of the vote did they need to keep Obama from doing what you agree with? Ohhhh!! Noooo. Not 51%. Oh, no. That somehow got to be 41%. They only need 41% to stop him. Now, Brian is frustrated at Oba for not helping his gay supporters. Now, why do you think Oba can't help the young man? O.K., goes back to them only needing 41% to fk with him. Now, who was it that decided that? Oh, it's their favorite authors. See that? Such infallible designers they were. They decided to give all these white trash states the same number of senators as the civilized states (2.) See that? They give Alabama 2 senators, and a much bigger (and more civilized) state also only gets 2 senators. So, Alabama, and Pennsylvania have very different population numbers. If a small population has the same power (in the senate) as a large population, then don't you think you've doubled or tripled the power of the people in that White Trash state of Alabama ?.....Uh, yep. Now you see why they love them folks that wrote this design. Now, once you've done that (given neck people 2 or 3 times the representation in the senate as civilized people,) you then only make the necks get 41% of the senate to fk up Oba. If you do the math on that, Oba is being held hostage by as little as what? 30% of the voters? Just so happens that those 30% don't like Gay Marriage. That's why that brotha is watching Basketball on T.V., instead of looking like he cares whether Gay Marriage is legal in Maine (something he probably is actually all for.) Our system is designed to heavily favor country-time folks. You can elect all the Progressive Brothas you want, but they will always have to overcome the wishes of the 30% trash in this country (they have a built-in advantage.) This trash will always have more say than you. If that's the way it feels, it's because that's the way it is. Believe me, those Tea baggers from Bama, Tennessee etc. have a bigger voice in this than you or myself. It's exactly the opposite of the sht they say. They are way over represented. I think this is one of the reasons minorities think there is so much prejudice at work. Just look how much representation (in the senate) white people in Montana have versus Urban Black voters in the big cities of this country. Who designed that? It was designed by (or certainly for) the Southern States. That's how they got them to join the Union. That's an unfair fkd-up design, and that's why this country will always be held hostage by the same fkn trash (designed that way.) If you don't think so, get a pair of pliers. Find any piece of cheap metal faucet pipe. Pinch it. Does it matter that the rest of the pipe is clear, n' wide? No, the only thing that matters is that it's pinched down at one point. That's Oba's problem (the senate is that pinch where 30% of the voters get to have the same power as the other 70% of the voters.) People are brainwashed to think this is a fair country. It certainly is not, but look who bitches the most on here. It's the 30% who already have the power equal to the other 70%. They should shut the f up, n' thank their lucky stars.

Ever heard of a paragraph?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's not supposed to be majority rule. the will of the people isn't supposed to supercede the constitution. if the majority voted to get rid of the press, do you really think that would happen? so why should civil rights only be permitted to some? it's simple-they're not supposed to be. all are created equal is supposed to mean just that.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth and you don't even realize it. On the one hand, you are saying that the Constitution and the founding fathers had much more sense than the masses do today and that we should trust the judgement of the founding fathers. That is a reasonable argument.

But on the other hand, you know what things were like in those days. The founding fathers weren't in favor of gay marriage. I think gay sex was a crime back then. So you can't have it both ways. Which is it? Should we listen to everything the founding fathers said. Or should we ignore the founding fathers and do what we think is right?

I wouldn't even have a problem if you said that the Constitution was a good document in general but it needs some changes because the founding fathers were dead wrong on some issues. That would be a fair argument. But I think it's silly to invoke the Constitution when it comes to the gay marriage argument because we know that the founding fathers were not in favor of gay marriage and being gay was not acceptable in those days. I'm not saying the founding fathers were right on this issue, I'm just saying that that is where they stood on the issue. How can we pretend that the Constitution would allow gay marriage when we know the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution would have vehemently opposed gay marriage?

I'm not saying that gay marriage should be illegal. I'm not giving an opinion one way or the other on the issue. I'm just saying that when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, allowing gay marriage was not one of their intentions. Quite to the contrary. If they would have even dreamed that there would be such a debate today, they would have probably spelled out specifically that there should be no gay marriages. Once again, I'm not saying they are right. They were far from infallible. They were in favor of slavery. I would say they were dead wrong on that issue.

I think it is a fair argument to say that gay marriage should be a right and that it should be legal. I could make an excellent case as to why gay marriage should be legal including the argument that it is the only fair thing to do. But I can't make an argument that it should be legal based on the founding fathers' document (the Constitution), because we know that the founding fathers would have never allowed gay marriage in a million years.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth and you don't even realize it. On the one hand, you are saying that the Constitution and the founding fathers had much more sense than the masses do today and that we should trust the judgement of the founding fathers. That is a reasonable argument.

But on the other hand, you know what things were like in those days. The founding fathers weren't in favor of gay marriage. I think gay sex was a crime back then. So you can't have it both ways. Which is it? Should we listen to everything the founding fathers said. Or should we ignore the founding fathers and do what we think is right?

I wouldn't even have a problem if you said that the Constitution was a good document in general but it needs some changes because the founding fathers were dead wrong on some issues. That would be a fair argument. But I think it's silly to invoke the Constitution when it comes to the gay marriage argument because we know that the founding fathers were not in favor of gay marriage and being gay was not acceptable in those days. I'm not saying the founding fathers were right on this issue, I'm just saying that that is where they stood on the issue. How can we pretend that the Constitution would allow gay marriage when we know the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution would have vehemently opposed gay marriage?

I'm not saying that gay marriage should be illegal. I'm not giving an opinion one way or the other on the issue. I'm just saying that when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, allowing gay marriage was not one of their intentions. Quite to the contrary. If they would have even dreamed that there would be such a debate today, they would have probably spelled out specifically that there should be no gay marriages. Once again, I'm not saying they are right. They were far from infallible. They were in favor of slavery. I would say they were dead wrong on that issue.

I think it is a fair argument to say that gay marriage should be a right and that it should be legal. I could make an excellent case as to why gay marriage should be legal including the argument that it is the only fair thing to do. But I can't make an argument that it should be legal based on the founding fathers' document (the Constitution), because we know that the founding fathers would have never allowed gay marriage in a million years.

i am not talking out of both sides of my mouth. the founding fathers wished to protect the rights of the minority-which in this case would be homosexuals.
as for being in favor of slavery, you might want to re-read your history. the only reason why it wasn't abolished back when the articles of confederation and the constution was being ratified is the founders who were against it were more concerned in getting the southern states to become just that, hoping later that slavery would end-which is exactly what happened.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i am not talking out of both sides of my mouth. the founding fathers wished to protect the rights of the minority-which in this case would be homosexuals.
as for being in favor of slavery, you might want to re-read your history. the only reason why it wasn't abolished back when the articles of confederation and the constution was being ratified is the founders who were against it were more concerned in getting the southern states to become just that, hoping later that slavery would end-which is exactly what happened.

Are you actually claiming that the founding fathers may have been in favor of gay marriage? Do you think if a gay person in that era would have come up to one of the founding fatheres and asked them whether it would be legal for two people of the same sex to get married, that the founding fathers would have said "yes"? If the founding fathers wanted to protect the rights of gay people then why did they throw people in jail for being gay back then? The founing fathers obviously had no interest in protecting the rights of gay people. Quite to the contrary. They would arrest you for being gay back then.

I think it's absurd when people invoke the Constitution on issues where it is clear that the founding fathers had a totally different meaning than what some people claim. Let's take the death penalty for example. Some people say that the death penalty should be illegal. I have no problem with a person believing that the death penalty should be illegal based on that person's belief system. But I do have a problem with people that say the death penalty should be illegal because the Constitution says that it is not ok to use "cruel or unusual punishment". When the founding fathers talked about "cruel or unusual punishment", there is no chance that they would have considered the death penalty as "cruel or unusual". In that era, the death penalty was considered fine. People were put to death all the time. So the founding fathers obviously would not have considered the death penalty as "cruel or unusual punishment". The argument that the death penalty should be illegal on Constitutional grounds is absurd.

[Danzig]

i think that's why the constitution doesn't spell things out specifically. they didn't know exactly what would come up in future, so it doesn't say you have the right to life, libery and pursuit of happiness as long as you fit certain criteria. they were smart enough, or we were lucky enough, that they were pretty general about everyone being equal, and that it is NOT majority rule, so that the rights of the minority can't be trampled on.
like i've said before, the issue isn't with marriage-the issue is that you can't offer rights to some and not others. where this country screwed up is with granting rights to some just because they're married. if marriage is a religious institution, the govt should have stayed out of it. since they didn't, and have offered things to couples, they are obviously not treating everyone as being equal.