Politics 2015

[Atticus]

You shouldn't beat your wife. I think everyone but some old school evangelical Christians agrees with that.

[Doug C]

Yes, it's bad form. Poor manners, in other words. Someone made a ridiculous statement about a rather large portion of the country and for some reason it's imperative that I respond, and my polite refusal to jump when commanded is met with thinly veiled accusations of racism? Sorry, but that's not how I hold conversations, face-to-face or otherwise.

 

I'm not a racist, I've never been a racist and I have no room for racists in my life. With that out of the way, I guess it's time for you to ask me if I've stopped beating my wife.

How is it poor manners to ask someone for clarification? If that is your definition of ill-mannered and boorish, you and I received different educations.

 

I did not ask you to respond to whether or not you are a racist. You stated that businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they choose and the law should stay out of it. You stated that the free market would weigh in regarding such business practices. Twoshedjackson asked if this would apply to "No blacks allowed". You didn't respond. I was interested in your response and directly asked you about it. If that is bad internet form and poor manners, then I am uncivil.

 

Please quote where I called you a racist. I did no such thing. I simply asked whether or not you thought that racist business practices should be illegal. I again ask for a response.

[KevinG]

Please quote where I called you a racist. I did no such thing. I simply asked whether or not you thought that racist business practices should be illegal. I again ask for a response.

 

Apparently dodging questions is par for the course in this debate.  

 

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/29/pence-religious-freedom-bill-stand-law/70627494/

[LouieB]

Why are we even talking about racism here?   This is about homophobia mostly.  It is also about trying to cover homophobia by invoking religious freedom.  It is all horrible.  The last bastion of racism and homophobia (or any kind of bigotry be it soft core or hard core) is denying bias entirely. 

 

LouieB

[JUDE]

I blame this all on the Mountainbed dude...

[LouieB]

Yea all his fault. Bravo Wilco.  Plenty of other states and countries to play in.  You can't fight every battle, but this current one is worth the trouble. 

 

LouieB

[ih8music]

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."--Judge Leon Bazile in Caroline County Court, 1958

[lost highway]

Wow. Not too long ago. That's an eye opener.

[Hixter]

Well, if we're throwing out old quotes:

 

 

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

—Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1946

Lest we forget that racism is and was a part of the Democrat Party and "the north" in addition to the Republican Party and "the south," Byrd was a Klan leader and went on to serve 50 years as a Democrat senator from West Virginia, which broke off from Virginia and joined the Union in the Civil War.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Well, if we're throwing out old quotes:

 

Lest we forget that racism is and was a part of the Democrat Party and "the north" in addition to the Republican Party and "the south," Byrd was a Klan leader and went on to serve 50 years as a Democrat senator from West Virginia, which broke off from Virginia and joined the Union in the Civil War.

Right. And then...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

 

Shake and stir for the next 45 years and you can see the results.

[Hixter]

As I said,

 

 

Lest we forget that racism is and was a part of the Democrat Party and "the north" in addition to the Republican Party and "the south,"

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I believe their official name is the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party.

 

Could you clarify the statement "racism is a part of," the party... meaning, in a current context?

[Hixter]

I believe their official name is the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party.

Sorry, I know that. Even former proofreaders miss something on occasion. On two occasions, even.

 

Could you clarify the statement "racism is a part of," the party... meaning, in a current context?

There are racists (probably millions of them) who vote Democrat and there are elected officials of the party who are racist. As I've said, Republicans and "the south" do not have a monopoly on racism in this country.

 

And since we were originally talking about discrimination against gays, I'll remind us that Proposition 8 in California passed with strong support from minorities which traditionally vote Democrat.

 

I'm not saying that racism is an integral part of either party, but just reminding everyone that parties are made up of people, and people have all kinds of personal opinions. For every racist, white, redneck Republican in Alabama there's a racist white union member in Boston who votes Democrat like clockwork. For every white Republican who drops the n-word with abandon, there's an African American who calls caucasians honkeys.

 

There aren't red states and blue states, there are purplish states.

[Mowjo8185]

So I'm fully prepared to get blasted for this post - and trust me, it's something that I struggle with internally.  Let me start by saying that I am all for gay rights under the government - call it marriage, or a union, or whatever you like to, but that gay people should be afforded everything under the law that a straight couple does. However, I'm also a Catholic, and I believe in the sacrament of Holy Matrimony - that, as a religious vocation, literally CAN'T be celebrated by a gay couple due to its procreative nature. While I can separate in my mind marriage as a religious union and marriage as a civil one, I have many close Catholic friends who can't - who feel that calling that union a "marriage" does in a way lessen the unique relationship they've entered into to bring children into this world in God's image.  And I can understand their point of view, and while I think they still need to treat all people with the utmost respect, I guess my point is this:  if my friend were a cake maker, and refused to make a cake for a gay person's birthday party, I would judge them, but if they refused to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding, I would understand where they were coming from.

 

Now, putting this into law gets complicated, as there are terrible people out there who would take the opportunity to just blatantly be terrible under the guise of a religious freedom. I understand that, and I disagree with the law for that reason - there's too many fringe religions out there that sanction treating people with absolutely no respect or dignity, which I can't get onboard with.  And I understand that those fringe, but very vocal contingents make most religious people look bad, but I think a lot of people of faith have much more complicated, nuanced viewpoints than that.  I am also concerned about the marginalization of religion in America - that it's the beginning of a slippery slope where people won't be able to live according to their moral code, just because it's a morality that isn't in-line with the "progress" we are making as a country.

[uncool2pillow]

How many Catholics would make sure a couple who comes into their bakery have not engaged in pre-marital sex or are on their first mattiage? I've sympathized with thos point and still do a bit, but if they want to actively discriminate against gays, then they better be trying to root out the other sinful unions. The more I think it through, the more I conclude it's discrimination plain and simple.

[Hixter]

I don't know why the government even got involved in issuing marriage licenses in the first place. Why do you need the government's approval to get married? Why is it legal for 2 people to get married, but not 3? It's not illegal to date or have sex with two people simultaneously.

[twoshedsjackson]

So I'm fully prepared to get blasted for this post - and trust me, it's something that I struggle with internally. Let me start by saying that I am all for gay rights under the government - call it marriage, or a union, or whatever you like to, but that gay people should be afforded everything under the law that a straight couple does. However, I'm also a Catholic, and I believe in the sacrament of Holy Matrimony - that, as a religious vocation, literally CAN'T be celebrated by a gay couple due to its procreative nature. While I can separate in my mind marriage as a religious union and marriage as a civil one, I have many close Catholic friends who can't - who feel that calling that union a "marriage" does in a way lessen the unique relationship they've entered into to bring children into this world in God's image. And I can understand their point of view, and while I think they still need to treat all people with the utmost respect, I guess my point is this: if my friend were a cake maker, and refused to make a cake for a gay person's birthday party, I would judge them, but if they refused to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding, I would understand where they were coming from.

 

Now, putting this into law gets complicated, as there are terrible people out there who would take the opportunity to just blatantly be terrible under the guise of a religious freedom. I understand that, and I disagree with the law for that reason - there's too many fringe religions out there that sanction treating people with absolutely no respect or dignity, which I can't get onboard with. And I understand that those fringe, but very vocal contingents make most religious people look bad, but I think a lot of people of faith have much more complicated, nuanced viewpoints than that. I am also concerned about the marginalization of religion in America - that it's the beginning of a slippery slope where people won't be able to live according to their moral code, just because it's a morality that isn't in-line with the "progress" we are making as a country.

A few points:

 

Your religion didn't invent marriage. If you want to bully gay catholics, go ahead. It'll be up to them to choose religion over happiness & marriage.

 

Since you mention the procreation aspect of a good catholic marriage I can only assume you only have sex for that purpose (as your god dictates) and therefore have many, many children - and follow all the other weird rules in your book.

 

I've yet to have someone explain to me why they oppose gay marriage on any other than religious terms. You do realize that someone else's happiness will in no way diminish your own, right?

 

If your "moral code" involves being so filled with superstition, fear or hate of someone different than you, then your "moral code" sucks.

[Mowjo8185]

^ this post kind of exemplifies my point. You are certainly being more judgmental toward me than I was in my post to any gay person. People viewing religious people as out of touch and acting like they are whackos just marginalizes them and their beliefs.

[twoshedsjackson]

^ this post kind of exemplifies my point. You are certainly being more judgmental toward me than I was in my post to any gay person. People viewing religious people as out of touch and acting like they are whackos just marginalizes them and their beliefs.

I am absolutely being judgemental. The fact that you, by choice, believe the contents of a "holy" book does NOT entitle you or your religion to deny anyone anything. You yourself may not be homophobic, but your organization most certainly is, and it gives all its adherents the right to be bigots too. It's the 21st century - time to stop this nonsense and evolve.

 

Gay people, on the other hand, do not choose their sexuality. Why should they not have every human right that you do?

[lost highway]

The fact is, at this point in history marriage has no essential meaning. The only meaning is constructively built by pairs of people who enter into it, each unique. The insecurity on the sanctity of marriage is logical. There is no sanctity, these people are chasing a ghost. If you are worried about authenticity you can only build it at home and yours doesn't look like mine. I'm lucky some jerk doesn't try to jab his petty god at mine, others are not so lucky.

[John Smith]

The govt is involved because of the contract nature of marriage. Without the license think

Of the fraud that would result. I believe that all church's should have the right to refuse to marry anyone. The Catholic Church will not marry non Catholics without them going through that class.

 

The procreation argument is fallacious, my aunt was unable to have children but was married in the church anyway. No possibility of procreation yet...

[Hixter]

Without the license think of the fraud that would result. 

That's based on the fact that married people receive special treatment and/or more benefits than single people. Not exactly fair, if you ask me.

[John Smith]

Benefits... My wife get benefits through m employer that she would not get without being married.

[Hixter]

Benefits... My wife get benefits through m employer that she would not get without being married.

But is it fair? Should married people get benefits that unmarried people can't?

[Mowjo8185]

I guess my point is, religious people get some sort of fulfillment from being religious and following the teachings of their church. The fact that you think they are batshit crazy (and a lot of them are) is irrelevant. Provided they aren't causing someone harm or depriving them of a very basic need, they should probably be allowed to act as bigoted as they feel. The government should absolutely protect minorities against true discrimination, in terms of employment, access to healthcare, tax breaks, etc. I think they are also right to allow gay marriage and the benefits that come with it. But forcing a photographer who, for his own reasons, does not support the union of two gay people, to photograph their wedding or be subject to legal action? How about you just find someone who actually wants to be a part of your special day? And, if you are so inclined, berate the photographer who turned you down on social media, which will undoubtedly cause their business to suffer. Then they can decide on their own if their business is worth compromising their own morals, as misguided as you think they may be. I'm just wary of a situation where people are being ordered to do something against their beliefs by the government, especially when it's not really a basic need/right and can be acquired elsewhere.