 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:34
|
|
The Founding Fathers are dead a long time. What they thought only counts in as far as the laws and structures that are still with us today. Their concerns are not relevant. We are the ones alive today. It is our concerns that are important.
edit :spelling fix
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 09-06-2005 at 21:04
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I'm not saying it's right or justifiable, I'm saying how it is, and it ain't gonna change. |
EVER??
I have a more optimistic view on things. I look at how the rights of African-Americans have changed in the last 100 years within the USA. Most people seem to now accept legal equality even though many still have a lot of racial bigotry.
I just look at the gay right issue and I'm pretty certain things like gay marriage wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell 40 years ago. Now in Canada and some parts of the US, it is an issue that "divides the country". Thats a big change in not a long time.
My prediction is that 20 years from now, Canadians and residents of some US states will see married homosexuals among them and wonder what all the fuss was about. The US South will still be fighting the issue but opinion polls will show that every year there is a slight increase in the number of people accepting of gay marriage. I'd say 100 years from now, you will have gay marriage well entrenched in all 50 states but there will still be a vocal minority that rail against it . It might be a lot like abortion in that sense
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
He's not talking about gay rights, but about politicians appealing to our baser instincts. |
In that case I agree. But on gay rights I could see an evolution on this such that 100 years from now its merely a side issue as the majority had accepted it for so long that kids will look in the history books with equal astonishment that there was once a time when
-- Gay people could not marry each other
-- black people were slaves
-- women were considered the property of their husbands
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000 time: 23:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Sure. Whether you agree with him or not, he's made his views, and presumably the views of a majority of Texans (at least with regard to gay marriage) clear. Given that we're talking about Texas, that ain't ever likely to change, so y'all can waste your time in futility, or go elsewhere where what you perceive to be fundamental rights aren't treated with the same disdain.
In that sense, his analysis of the options is correct. |
And before we forget how we ever got onto the topic of tyranny of majority, this is where it started.
Note that MTG has implied that because the majority has voted for discrimination against gays, that this enabled the governor to flip off gay veterans from Texas.
Of course, MTG is not saying that this is necessarily right, but that this is sadly the case. But IIRC, there are some Apolyton members who do believe that majority rule is absolutely correct regardless of what wrong can result from it, right??
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999 time: 21:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MrFun
Because YOU brought up the idea that the position of the Texas governor on this issue is legitimately based on the majority rule.
So, in response, I brought up the inherent danger that comes, when a majority decide to run roughshod over a minority group's rights. |
I didn't say anything about the "legitimacy" of anything, diphead. Learn to read. "Legitimacy != "reality." The courts generally don't support the notion that anyone's rights are violated, other than some very left leaning state courts (Mass., Vermont and Hawaii), so there's no judicial relief in sight for decades at least, especially at the Federal level. And the voters sure as hell aren't going to help you there.
You talk "rights" They talk Evil Sodomite Agenda to Destroy the Institution of Marriage as part of Satan's War Against the FamilyTM. The "middle ground" in most of the US is to dismiss "whiny libruls looking for more government entitlements" or at best the "what they do is their business (ewwwww), but why should we have to hear about it" crowd.
You're dealing with the American electorate here, and the middul Amurkin Bahble Belt 'lectorate at that.
Even people on the moderate to progressive side of the spectrum have (a) higher priorities, such as jobs, healthcare, education, national security, etc., or (b) don't really give a rat's ass about gay marriage because it doesn't affect them, or (c) if they're candidates for statewide electoral office, they don't want to commit political self-immolation by taking on this issue.
Your practical choices come down to accept it the way it is, for the indefinite future, or move someplace with a more favorable political landscape. Or do neither and whine without the slightest effect - that's the option Perry forgot.
Last edited by MichaeltheGreat on 09-06-2005 at 23:03
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999 time: 21:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Flubber
EVER??
I have a more optimistic view on things. I look at how the rights of African-Americans have changed in the last 100 years within the USA. Most people seem to now accept legal equality even though many still have a lot of racial bigotry.
I just look at the gay right issue and I'm pretty certain things like gay marriage wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell 40 years ago. Now in Canada and some parts of the US, it is an issue that "divides the country". Thats a big change in not a long time.
My prediction is that 20 years from now, Canadians and residents of some US states will see married homosexuals among them and wonder what all the fuss was about. The US South will still be fighting the issue but opinion polls will show that every year there is a slight increase in the number of people accepting of gay marriage. I'd say 100 years from now, you will have gay marriage well entrenched in all 50 states but there will still be a vocal minority that rail against it . It might be a lot like abortion in that sense |
I spent a majority of my childhood in the deep south in the 1960's. We started out with the majority spectrum from "don't tell us how to handle our niggers" to "the colored aren't ready for equality. They require cultivating" range. Other than the Feds being willing to step in for decades, and tens of millions of people being affected, you had the problem that there wasn't really any compelling rationale for segregation.
This is a country in which some parts seriously debate creationism as a scientific construct, and in which in other parts, there ain't no debate at all. Even seen those bumper stickers that say "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it" or the "jesus fish" with the word "truth" in them eating a "darwin fish?"
You're dealing with a much more deeply entrenched mentality here that is far more hung up about sex than Canada or western Europe, and that feels that decriminalization of sodomy is a major concession. I don't see that changing on a national scale for way longer than my grandkids lifespan, and they're not even born yet.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|