Historic Same Sex Marriage Trial About to Start

[Craig234]

Well that is one opinion. However, after the prop 8 vote was over, there was a developed consesus that the analogy was not pushed very hard in this particular case and that this ommission cost several points in the black vote. The trouble with that segment is that it is more homophobic on the whole than caucasions, and also more religious. Hence, the only real in is to artfully frame this sort of analogy without seeming to take anything away from the historical significance of the black civil rights movement. You start off by reminding them of their own momentus struggle, then comes the appeal to decency - how can we deny another group something we fought so hard to achieve for ourselves?

- wolf

Which raises an interesting question, why don't we see a black gay rights leader more? That might help.

 

[woolfe9999]

Which raises an interesting question, why don't we see a black gay rights leader more? That might help.

Probably because homosexuality in the black community is pretty much on the "down low," and there is a much lower rate of gay blacks coming out.

The same is true in the hispanic community BTW, though curiously hispanics only voted slightly in favor of prop 8 rather than the 2:1 in the black community.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

Blacks are disproprtionately bigoted against gays, unfortunately. But you are posting a lot of falsehood to deny the unique history of blacks, indeed it's offensive.

Having the century after the civil where your family advanced with full rights while blacks is the relevant issue, not if your ancestor 200 years ago raped a black slave. It's not about the 'blood'. That's pretty ignorant.

As for blacks not liking the Loving v. Virginia analogy, too, frickin, bad. The only reason not to like it is bigotry, and they need to get that fixed like everyone else.

The history of blacks in America is unique in its totally. However, the specific analogy with Loving is equisite - opponents of inter-margiage were mostly religious fundies who said that a mixed marriage was an unholy abomination that debased the instutition of marriage. That is the *exact* same argument being made with respect to gays.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

The history of blacks in America is unique in its totally. However, the specific analogy with Loving is equisite - opponents of inter-margiage were mostly religious fundies who said that a mixed marriage was an unholy abomination that debased the instutition of marriage. That is the *exact* same argument being made with respect to gays.

- wolf

I agree. I've called the Loving analogy effectivy 'perfect'.

It's a separate issue from Possum's ignorant claim that if there's a balck slave in his past, then he has the same issue from black racism as any black has.

That's his simply not understanding what the legacy effects of a century of racism are, which his family did not endure.

 

[werepossum]

Blacks are disproprtionately bigoted against gays, unfortunately. But you are posting a lot of falsehood to deny the unique history of blacks, indeed it's offensive.

Having the century after the civil where your family advanced with full rights while blacks is the relevant issue, not if your ancestor 200 years ago raped a black slave. It's not about the 'blood'. That's pretty ignorant.

As for blacks not liking the Loving v. Virginia analogy, too, frickin, bad. The only reason not to like it is bigotry, and they need to get that fixed like everyone else.

Yeah, I'm sure that if you swoop in and explain to blacks that they are just a bunch of bigoted hicks they'll jump right in line with your desires. LOL I hear they like to be addressed as "Boy" too. And don't forget to rub their heads - might as well go for the whole hog. Let me know how that works for you.

I'm simply observing the dynamics of appealing to blacks by comparing their struggle to gays' struggle. I'm not saying that blacks deserve to exclude other races or groups - but as Chris Rock says, "I can understand it." And it is different. Gays can be in the closet and are only fighting for financial advantages and forced acceptance. Very, very few blacks had that option. How many blacks have you ever known that, if desired, could have passed for white with even a cursory glance?

I have no problems with gays marrying or having whatever rights non-gays have. (As long as the special protections go away. I don't think it's right to be equal and then some.) And I certainly don't think the government should have any control over whom I marry, or that I should have any control over who my neighbor marries. I'm just saying I can understand why blacks might not accept equating their civil rights struggle with that of gays, an otherwise pretty prosperous group. (Although I have to admit we have a black president way before we'll have a gay president.)

 

[jonks]

ironing:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-12-2010/dreaded-bliss

 

[Munky]

No, I stand by ignoramus. You are trying to change what you said.

There was a post saying that the court should overturn this as a violation of individual rights, as they have past laws of discrmination.

You responded 'here we go again', that the court overturning a popular law is a 'fundamental violation of democracy'.

You implicitly argued AGAINST the entire concept of individual rights protected by the court against the majority.

I pointed out your error, and given your strident attack on people as 'violating democracy', I correctly said that was the attack of an ignoramus.

Now, you aqre trying to say you never said anything about the court - you are only talking about everyone IGNORING laws without any court ruling.

That's not what was said, and it's dishonest to say otherwise.

I may yet get Wolfe endorsing my ignoramus statement, but I'm not sure if it's in his constitution to do so however justified.

And I stand by dipshit, and raise you a scumbag. The post said "the people voted wrong," as if it's already been settled that the ruling is unconstitutional, when in fact there was no such ruling. But since sticking to the facts is too inconvenient for you, perhaps you should extrapolate on the retarded Palin/religion tangent you got panties all wet over, I got a good laugh out of that one.

 

[werepossum]

I agree. I've called the Loving analogy effectivy 'perfect'.

It's a separate issue from Possum's ignorant claim that if there's a balck slave in his past, then he has the same issue from black racism as any black has.

That's his simply not understanding what the legacy effects of a century of racism are, which his family did not endure.

Dude, you really need to take "Reading for Comprehension" 101, as I never made that claim. (And if I had, I'd have spelled it correctly.) I specifically said that almost everyone has an ancestor in slavery or serfdom. Note that my statement is devoid of any implication of issues or effects; it is merely a statement of fact. (For Americans, anyway; Europeans have much less class mingling than do we.) I then pointed out that blacks have a unique history which is unlike any other group's in the United States, with the caveat that Native Americans were treated even worse. (Much, much worse in fact.) This is also a statement of fact, and would logically imply that my views are in fact diametrically opposed to those you attributed to me.

Community college - more than just a place to buy dope and Marxist agitprop. Check it out.

EDIT: As I come from a bunch of brown-haired, blue-eyed chalkasians whose skin is practically transparent, I'm pretty sure there is no black slave in my past. Although in the Texas town my paternal grandfather left to come to Tennessee all the Whitfields are black, so who knows? Maybe he was the "white sheep" of the family. LOL

 

[Craig234]

Yeah, I'm sure that if you swoop in and explain to blacks that they are just a bunch of bigoted hicks they'll jump right in line with your desires. LOL I hear they like to be addressed as "Boy" too. And don't forget to rub their heads - might as well go for the whole hog. Let me know how that works for you.

I'm simply observing the dynamics of appealing to blacks by comparing their struggle to gays' struggle. I'm not saying that blacks deserve to exclude other races or groups - but as Chris Rock says, "I can understand it." And it is different. Gays can be in the closet and are only fighting for financial advantages and forced acceptance. Very, very few blacks had that option. How many blacks have you ever known that, if desired, could have passed for white with even a cursory glance?

I have no problems with gays marrying or having whatever rights non-gays have. (As long as the special protections go away. I don't think it's right to be equal and then some.) And I certainly don't think the government should have any control over whom I marry, or that I should have any control over who my neighbor marries. I'm just saying I can understand why blacks might not accept their civil rights struggle with that of gays, an otherwise pretty prosperous group. (Although I have to admit we have a black president way before we'll have a gay president.)

Oh, drop the bigoted rhetoric.

Equal rights you call "economic ADVANTAGE (caps added) and forced acceptance".

Total, bigoted, BS.

Does that make blacks who wanted to end work discrimination out for "economic advantage and forced acceptance" too? Yes, by your rhetoric. You are twisting the end of DISCRIMINATION with hate.

You further spread hate with the idea that a gay's relative ease he can hide his homosexuality is somehow relevant.

It's a difference, but one unrelated to the rights andbigotry issues.

Gays *should not have to* hide who they are - their having to do so for so long is rooted in discrimination.

And blacks were 'closeted' in a way anyway - in many ways invisible to whites, living ot of sight in the segregated slums, banned from whites' leisure activities like the lunch counter or swimming pool or restroom.

Visible only as ignored 'domestics' or out of sight 'manual laborers'.

You have no relevant point about the gays' ability to hide their hbomosexuality compared to blacks' in ability to hide their skin color. Both are personal traits that have caused but should not cause discrimination.

Oh by the way, we very likely have already had a gay president. Google it.

 

[Craig234]

Dude, you really need to take "Reading for Comprehension" 101, as I never made that claim. (And if I had, I'd have spelled it correctly.) I specifically said that almost everyone has an ancestor in slavery or serfdom. Note that my statement is devoid of any implication of issues or effects; it is merely a statement of fact. (For Americans, anyway; Europeans have much less class mingling than do we.) I then pointed out that blacks have a unique history which is unlike any other group's in the United States, with the caveat that Native Americans were treated even worse. (Much, much worse in fact.) This is also a statement of fact, and would logically imply that my views are in fact diametrically opposed to those you attributed to me.

Community college - more than just a place to buy dope and Marxist agitprop. Check it out.

EDIT: As I come from a bunch of brown-haired, blue-eyed chalkasians whose skin is practically transparent, I'm pretty sure there is no black slave in my past. Although in the Texas town my paternal grandfather left to come to Tennessee all the Whitfields are black, so who knows? Maybe he was the "white sheep" of the family. LOL

You said:

[quote}Blacks like their status in America to be unique. No matter that virtually every person has an ancestor in slavery or at least serfdom...[/quote]

I read that as "Blacks like": that's like saying 'Jews like being holocause victims for all the sympathy it gets them'. It implies blacks are somrt of conniving group who is using the issue of their past, and perhaps exaggerating it, for some evil purpose, to manipulate people - it implies that's their position and that the issues aren't really too real.

Youre 'no matter that othershave an ancestor slave' I read as meaning that the blacks' history is no different than anyone who has an ancestor slave, further reinforcing that they're dishonestly using the issue.

Now, if you want to tell me that's not what you meant, that you meant the opposite by saying blacks LIKE their horrible history somehow, you are welcome to say so. And I might even accept that you meant the opposite of what you wrote. But your claim it was the reading and not the writing is quite wrong. So, say what you like - the important thing is if you adopt the right view, not pointing fingers - as wonderfully useful as your pointing out my 'black/balck' typoo was after I've rpeatedly said I'm on a lousy interface and there will be more typos whle I am.

 

[Craig234]

And I stand by dipshit, and raise you a scumbag. The post said "the people voted wrong," as if it's already been settled that the ruling is unconstitutional, when in fact there was no such ruling. But since sticking to the facts is too inconvenient for you, perhaps you should extrapolate on the retarded Palin/religion tangent you got panties all wet over, I got a good laugh out of that one.

The post was about the need for a court ruling to reverse the law. Period. You indicate you did not understand that - all the huffing and puffing you do just makes you look the fool.

Amd you are not honest. You say you only misunderstood that the comment 'the voters voted wrong' somehow meant 'ignore the law' and was the basis for your post.

But in fact the post said a court ruling was needed as in Loving v. Virginia, and you responded 'here we go again' about that ruling. Loving v. Virginia had no history as I understand of the law being ignored for being wrong - its history was the court ruling overturning it against the popular will and votes of those states.

So when you say here we go again with the violation of the majority who should get the last word, what are you referring to - the court overturning a majority vote, what you said and what Loving v. Virginia had in common with this trial - or the law being ignored just for being 'wrong', which had not happened in Loving v. Viriginia but you said 'here we go again', and which no one had advocated here.

 

[werepossum]

You said:

Blacks like their status in America to be unique. No matter that virtually every person has an ancestor in slavery or at least serfdom...

I read that as "Blacks like": that's like saying 'Jews like being holocause victims for all the sympathy it gets them'. It implies blacks are somrt of conniving group who is using the issue of their past, and perhaps exaggerating it, for some evil purpose, to manipulate people - it implies that's their position and that the issues aren't really too real.

Youre 'no matter that othershave an ancestor slave' I read as meaning that the blacks' history is no different than anyone who has an ancestor slave, further reinforcing that they're dishonestly using the issue.

Now, if you want to tell me that's not what you meant, that you meant the opposite by saying blacks LIKE their horrible history somehow, you are welcome to say so. And I might even accept that you meant the opposite of what you wrote. But your claim it was the reading and not the writing is quite wrong. So, say what you like - the important thing is if you adopt the right view, not pointing fingers - as wonderfully useful as your pointing out my 'black/balck' typoo was after I've rpeatedly said I'm on a lousy interface and there will be more typos whle I am.

This was my post; the statement you cut off is in bold and looks rather different when not chopped up. I have no problem believing that you are stupid enough to not understand it though, if you insist that's how you read that statement.

Loving v. Virginia as an analogy for gay rights has been pushed on blacks for years; it's one of the things that really pisses them off. Blacks like their status in America to be unique. No matter that virtually every person has an ancestor in slavery or at least serfdom, no other group has that history in America, or lasting until almost the end of the 19th century. (Native Americans obviously had it worse, but not any other group.) Drawing any particular analogies between a particular struggle in black civil rights and gay civil rights just alienates them. You'd be better off appealing to their innate human sense of fairness and compassion than equating their own struggle to that of gays, in my opinion.

This is all Wolf's fault. Normally I only see one thin line that says "Craig234"; I just insert the appropriate America- conservative- Republican-bashing drivel and move along without having my brain eroded. But he said you were right and since I value his opinion I voluntarily exposed myself to your inanity. Compounding my mistake, I then responded, thereby getting drivel splashed all over my nice shirt.

You owe me, Wolf!

 

[Munky]

The post was about the need for a court ruling to reverse the law. Period. You indicate you did not understand that - all the huffing and puffing you do just makes you look the fool.

Amd you are not honest. You say you only misunderstood that the comment 'the voters voted wrong' somehow meant 'ignore the law' and was the basis for your post.

But in fact the post said a court ruling was needed as in Loving v. Virginia, and you responded 'here we go again' about that ruling. Loving v. Virginia had no history as I understand of the law being ignored for being wrong - its history was the court ruling overturning it against the popular will and votes of those states.

So when you say here we go again with the violation of the majority who should get the last word, what are you referring to - the court overturning a majority vote, what you said and what Loving v. Virginia had in common with this trial - or the law being ignored just for being 'wrong', which had not happened in Loving v. Viriginia but you said 'here we go again', and which no one had advocated here.

Incorrect. The poster was passing his baseless opinion as a fact, stating that the vote was "wrong", and the court needs to "fix" it. I did not misunderstand anything, that's what the ignoramus post said.

Secondly, explain to me how "Here we go again" means "Loving v. Viriginia." And this time, try to avoid partisan bias and religions references.

 

[Craig234]

This was my post; the statement you cut off is in bold and looks rather different when not chopped up. I have no problem believing that you are stupid enough to not understand it though, if you insist that's how you read that statement.

This is all Wolf's fault. Normally I only see one thin line that says "Craig234"; I just insert the appropriate America- conservative- Republican-bashing drivel and move along without having my brain eroded. But he said you were right and since I value his opinion I voluntarily exposed myself to your inanity. Compounding my mistake, I then responded, thereby getting drivel splashed all over my nice shirt.

You owe me, Wolf!

You've degraded to being an idiot. You ignore the many flaws pointed out in your posts to huff and puff.

I blame you for wasting my time with your idiocy and lies. You need to go back to your claimed behavior of not reading my posts until you learn how to post somewhat sensibly.

But of course, blacks 'liking' to 'claim' their history is unique never, ever, ever, for a tiny minute meant you were implying you had any slight suspicion of their 'claims' - for one of you many flaws.

You ignored the flaw being pointed out that gays wanting equal marital rights is not "economic advantage" except in the most deceptive intepretation of the word advantage - and not worthy of your condemntation.

You ignored when it was pointed out that you were wrongly arguing that gays are less deserving of not being discriminated against because they can more easily hide homosexuality than blacks can hide race.

And so on. Your behavior to run from your errors and huff and puff as your defense is not from as bad as forum behavior gets.

 

[Craig234]

Incorrect. The poster was passing his baseless opinion as a fact, stating that the vote was "wrong", and the court needs to "fix" it. I did not misunderstand anything, that's what the ignoramus post said.

Secondly, explain to me how "Here we go again" means "Loving v. Viriginia." And this time, try to avoid partisan bias and religions references.

It's the poster's OPINION that the vote was wrong - that it was bigotry and violated the equal rights gays are morally and legally deserving of. Bawed on that opinion, the court needs to fix that mistake.

Nothing there about 'ignore the law because it's (morally) wrong', as you claim he said.

Instead of that, he said the court needs to fix it, just as they fixed the same problem in Loving v. Virginia.

So when you say 'here we go again', what are we to correlate 'again' to? The Loving decision he just stated or some secret history you don't state?

You then go on a 'majority is always right' rant, not a WORD about the court's proper role in defending indivudual, constitutional rights - only a rant against the majority's will being violated.

He JUST WROTE about the court defending those rights, and you argued for the majority to get their way as a response to his comments - and we're supposed to assume you weren't arguing against a ruling?

You were instead arguing against some ignoring of any law you think is morally wrong that no one had said anything about?

Poster: The court needs to overturn the popular vote as they did before.
Munky: Here we go again, the will of the majority wrongly denied ruining democracy!
Craig: Uh, our democracy includes the courts protecting individual rights from the majority.
Munky: Poopyhead! I never said anything about a ruling being bad!

 

[Munky]

It's the poster's OPINION that the vote was wrong - that it was bigotry and violated the equal rights gays are morally and legally deserving of. Bawed on that opinion, the court needs to fix that mistake.

It was not presented as an opinion, but rather as an axiomatic fact. In reality, there is nothing "wrong" with that vote unless the court says so.

Nothing there about 'ignore the law because it's (morally) wrong', as you claim he said.

I did not claim any such thing.

Instead of that, he said the court needs to fix it

The word "fix" implies that something is inherently wrong or broken and needs to be fixed. An implication which is based purely on his opinion.

just as they fixed the same problem in Loving v. Virginia.

You inserted that reference to Loving v. Virginia yourself, it wasn't anywhere in the post I replied to.

So when you say 'here we go again', what are we to correlate 'again' to? The Loving decision he just stated or some secret history you don't state?

Should be pretty obvious that I am not referring to Loving v. Virginia.

You then go on a 'majority is always right' rant, not a WORD about the court's proper role in defending indivudual, constitutional rights - only a rant against the majority's will being violated.

Nope, but nice try. The court has not ruled against the majority in this decision, so for the moment, they are "right."

He JUST WROTE about the court defending those rights, and you argued for the majority to get their way as a response to his comments - and we're supposed to assume you weren't arguing against a ruling?

He did not mention anyone's rights, explain how they were being violated, or even explain why he thought the vote was "wrong." He simply passed it off as an undeniable fact, and this is what I contend.

You were instead arguing against some ignoring of any law you think is morally wrong that no one had said anything about?

Did I now? The same way the poster alluded to Loving v. Virginia and explained how the vote was violating peoples rights? Nope, you just made that up on the spot.

Poster: The court needs to overturn the popular vote as they did before.
Munky: Here we go again, the will of the majority wrongly denied ruining democracy!
Craig: Uh, our democracy includes the courts protecting individual rights from the majority.
Munky: Poopyhead! I never said anything about a ruling being bad!

You left out the best part -
Craig: <gasp>, you're not sympathetic to the gay cause, you must be one of them Palin-loving religious ignoramuses!

 

[Craig234]

"Voting against equal rights for gays to marry is wrong."

Munky: You did not state that as opinion you stated it as axiom!

You really have a struggle understanding what is clearly opinion and doesn't need a warning labell stating it as such.

The word "fix" implies that something is inherently wrong or broken and needs to be fixed. An implication which is based purely on his opinion.

We go from 'he statement is axiom not opinion' to 'his statement is based purely on opinion'. So you DO understand it was opinion, when it's convenient.

You inserted that reference to Loving v. Virginia yourself, it wasn't anywhere in the post I replied to.

You're completely correct. I misremembered his post, and my comments have to be reconsidered in light of that error. Sorry for the error. My references to Loving and the implications are withdrawn.

Nope, but nice try. The court has not ruled against the majority in this decision, so for the moment, they are "right."

His opinion is that the popular vote violates equal rights and the court need to recerse it. You replied with a blast against overturning the popular vote.

It sure looks like you disagreeing with his statement you quoted, that you are against the court overturning it because the court should not overturn the popular vote.

What you are saying is different, and doesn't fit with the original post. But if you say it's what you meant, let's consider it updated.

Craig: Nothing there about 'ignore the law because it's (morally) wrong', as you claim he said

\Munky:I did not claim any such thing.

Except you did.

if you're gonna have a vote on an issue, and then say "oh well, I didn't like how the results turned out, [bold]so I'll just ignore it[/bold] anyways," then you're undermining the legal power of voting. If the legal process calls for a vote, you don't arbitrarily decide whether or not to honor the results of such a vote.

So I can't tell what you are saying now. He said it's his opinion the vote was wrong and the court should overturn the vote.

If you are just disagreeing with his opinion, I'd like to hear your defense for claiming the vote is not a violation of equal rights in your opinion. If you are not saying that, I'ld like a clarification.

 

[Munky]

"Voting against equal rights for gays to marry is wrong."

Munky: You did not state that as opinion you stated it as axiom!

You really have a struggle understanding what is clearly opinion and doesn't need a warning labell stating it as such.

You mean like the opinion you pulled out of your arse just now? Nope, no problem there...

We go from 'he statement is axiom not opinion' to 'his statement is based purely on opinion'. So you DO understand it was opinion, when it's convenient.

Too bad you don't understand the difference between quoting and misquoting. If his statement WAS an axiom, there wouldn't be an argument.

His opinion is that the popular vote violates equal rights and the court need to recerse it. You replied with a blast against overturning the popular vote.

It sure looks like you disagreeing with his statement you quoted, that you are against the court overturning it because the court should not overturn the popular vote.

Again, his statement was that the vote was wrong and the court should fix it. No mention of what was violated and how.

So I can't tell what you are saying now. He said it's his opinion the vote was wrong and the court should overturn the vote.

If you are just disagreeing with his opinion, I'd like to hear your defense for claiming the vote is not a violation of equal rights in your opinion. If you are not saying that, I'ld like a clarification.

I am disagreeing with proclaiming a majority vote is "wrong" when it has not been ruled as such in court.

 

[Craig234]

Too bad you don't understand the difference between quoting and misquoting. If his statement WAS an axiom, there wouldn't be an argument.

Nothing misquoted. He posted what was clearly an opinion; you claimed he posted it as an 'axiom'.

Again, his statement was that the vote was wrong and the court should fix it. No mention of what was violated and how.

I don't know what that has to do with your response, but the reasons for opposing that vote have been listed over and over and over.

At some point saying you're against Al Queda no longer needs the violence listed to explain why.

I am disagreeing with proclaiming a majority vote is "wrong" when it has not been ruled as such in court.

We disagree. In a perfectly functining court system, when an unconstitutional law is passed, there's a window between its passage while citizens say "that's wrong" before the court rules on it.

Add in that the court doesn't always get it right - as 4 of 9 justices usually seem to agree - and you have plenty of reason for someone to say their opinion that a law is wrong outside the court.

You are saying he should have no opinion whether a law is wrong untill the court rules, That's ridiculous.

Heck, no lawsuits would ever be brought. "Hey aren't you going to file suit that law is unconstitutional?" "No, I can't say anything until the court rules". "But the court doesn't rule if you don't file". "Ask Munky".

And that's not even getting into the moral 'wrong' that the court doesn't rule on.

 

[Munky]

Nothing misquoted. He posted what was clearly an opinion; you claimed he posted it as an 'axiom'.



I don't know what that has to do with your response, but the reasons for opposing that vote have been listed over and over and over.

At some point saying you're against Al Queda no longer needs the violence listed to explain why.



We disagree. In a perfectly functining court system, when an unconstitutional law is passed, there's a window between its passage while citizens say "that's wrong" before the court rules on it.

Add in that the court doesn't always get it right - as 4 of 9 justices usually seem to agree - and you have plenty of reason for someone to say their opinion that a law is wrong outside the court.

You are saying he should have no opinion whether a law is wrong untill the court rules, That's ridiculous.

Heck, no lawsuits would ever be brought. "Hey aren't you going to file suit that law is unconstitutional?" "No, I can't say anything until the court rules". "But the court doesn't rule if you don't file". "Ask Munky".

And that's not even getting into the moral 'wrong' that the court doesn't rule on.

I don't want 'morals' mixed with our legal system. Didn't work out too well historically under Muslim/Christian theocracy ,the prohibition, and I don't like the way it's going now with marijuana regulation.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I don't want 'morals' mixed with our legal system. Didn't work out too well historically under Muslim/Christian theocracy ,the prohibition, and I don't like the way it's going now with marijuana regulation.

I think Craig will agree with you on that, i most certainly do.

Fuck Religion.

 

[Craig234]

I think Craig will agree with you on that, i most certainly do.

Fuck Religion.

Well, morals are the foundation of our legal system. The idea that it's iommoral to steal, immoral to rape.

Now, that's very different than the beliefs of a system being forced on people - like every man has to grow a beard. That's religious, not moral.

I not only have no problem with morals being used for politics - within the context of constitutional freedoms, including freedom of religion - they're essential. It's people who vote without morality who harm.

It's the guy who says 'who cares about gay marriage or helping the poor, screw em', who is the problem.

There's always been a tricky dividingline between morality and religious excess, but there's no way and there should not be to tell people 'don't vote based on morality'.

 

[MotF Bane]

I don't want 'morals' mixed with our legal system. Didn't work out too well historically under Muslim/Christian theocracy ,the prohibition, and I don't like the way it's going now with marijuana regulation.

I'm with you. Morals have no place in legislation. It's funny how the left screams about the right legislating their brand of morality, yet they have their own and see it as the correct set of legislated morals. Therein is the flaw - morals are subjective.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Well, morals are the foundation of our legal system. The idea that it's iommoral to steal, immoral to rape.

Now, that's very different than the beliefs of a system being forced on people - like every man has to grow a beard. That's religious, not moral.

I not only have no problem with morals being used for politics - within the context of constitutional freedoms, including freedom of religion - they're essential. It's people who vote without morality who harm.

It's the guy who says 'who cares about gay marriage or helping the poor, screw em', who is the problem.

There's always been a tricky dividingline between morality and religious excess, but there's no way and there should not be to tell people 'don't vote based on morality'.

No they are not, we are fucking born with a sense of empathy and THAT is where morals come from, not the "well i'd rape and kill if i knew i could get away with it" law system made by men.

Of course, the empathy that one has will vary with everyone and in your case, let's just say that it's good that at least you believe in following the law.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I'm with you. Morals have no place in legislation. It's funny how the left screams about the right legislating their brand of morality, yet they have their own and see it as the correct set of legislated morals. Therein is the flaw - morals are subjective.

I think you are wrong there, i think any sane man or woman should be against legislation that is restrictive towards personal freedoms that affect no one else and i don't think party affiliation has anything to do with it.

Then again, i'm a liberal democrat, not the strange version you got in the US, the version we have in the UK which is more of a mix of your liberals, conservatives and mostly libertians.