Segregation now, segregation forever!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
Well they didn't disagree, did they? We certainly had a segregate society for 100 years, long after the days of the Quakers and Abolitionists! I don't know that I ever saw anything from either Quakers or Abolitionists which suggested blacks and whites were equal or should be considered equal in society. They opposed the enslavement of human beings, they felt they should be free, and in that sense, given equal consideration as fellow human beings, but none of them ever suggested they were equal to whites or advocated for such policies.

Here is where the modern day liberal nitwit, gets Civil Rights and the Civil War confused... the literally view the Civil War as the beginning of Civil Rights, and it wasn't. Those who favored abolition to slavery, were NOT advocates of racial equality! They just weren't! And to continue pretending that this was the case, is simply ignorant of historical fact, and an insult to Civil Rights, in my opinion.

You really are as dumb as they say, aren't you? YOU contradict YOURSELF in your own post brainiac!

What a chachi!

If you bother to READ the post in context, and not be tempted to dissect my comments into perversions of what you THINK you read, you will find I stated it very clearly and in a very non-contradictory way. Those who favored equality of FREEDOM from slavery, did not automatically endorse equality of blacks and whites in society! If that were the case, we would have never needed the Civil Rights Act, because for the preceding century, we would have all understood that blacks were equal to whites, and there would have never been the systemic racist segregation established in our society! There is NO contradiction in stating THE TRUTH, that while people advocated freedom from slavery, they DIDN'T advocate racial equality, that simply wasn't the case before 1964.

Now, if you all want to twist that statement into Dixie claiming that not a single person in the United States ever once spoke of equality among races, then you can do that, it shows what a bunch of dishonest fucks you are. My point (and again, THE TRUTH) is that segregation was a national policy for 100 years, ALL presidents, ALL Congresses, and ALL Courts, upheld and condoned the segregationist policies and practices, for a century after the Civil War! Whether there were SOME people who MIGHT have spoken out against it, is beside the point! Those in power to do something about it, did NOTHING about it!

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't have a religion, I am a spiritualist. I just understand the problem and how we effectively solve the problem, which I am willing to do. You, are not!

Again, you insist you have advocated for my solution, yet you continue to insist on fighting a ridiculous battle against religious beliefs. What purpose does that have, other than your desire to attack religion? Can you explain that, or not? Because, so far, all you are doing is crowing out of both sides of your mouth. You either support a resolution that works for everyone, or you want to keep the issue ignited in controversy and on the table of debate, unresolved. You really can't have it both ways, you can't solve the problem while perpetuating an argument for the problem.

Dixie, you claim that anyone pressing for gay marriage is attacking religion. But you yourself are taking away every religion's right or ability to choose for themselves.

You demand that the federal gov't, and entity that is required to NOT be specifically in favor of any one religion, take ONLY your religious views and deny anyone else's religion the right to make the decision.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, you claim that anyone pressing for gay marriage is attacking religion. But you yourself are taking away every religion's right or ability to choose for themselves.

You demand that the federal gov't, and entity that is required to NOT be specifically in favor of any one religion, take ONLY your religious views and deny anyone else's religion the right to make the decision.

I have no idea of how you got such a convoluted idea from something I've said.

I didn't "claim" that people pressing for gay marriage were attacking religion, I very painstakingly explained how that was the only rational logical conclusion anyone thinking rationally and logically could conclude and be honest. You must be interested in attacking religion and religious tradition, because you aren't interested in advocating for the solution.

How would Civil Unions and taking the government out of the marriage business, be viewed as denying someone their right to make religious decisions? How does what I articulated, represent MY religious views, when I belong to no religion? Have you taken your meds today? Because you seem to be reading things that just aren't there.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have no idea of how you got such a convoluted idea from something I've said.

I didn't "claim" that people pressing for gay marriage were attacking religion, I very painstakingly explained how that was the only rational logical conclusion anyone thinking rationally and logically could conclude and be honest. You must be interested in attacking religion and religious tradition, because you aren't interested in advocating for the solution.

How would Civil Unions and taking the government out of the marriage business, be viewed as denying someone their right to make religious decisions? How does what I articulated, represent MY religious views, when I belong to no religion? Have you taken your meds today? Because you seem to be reading things that just aren't there.

The idea that you want the institution of marriage protected from change, even from within a religious organization is how I got to the simple statement I made.

You want marriage preserved as it is in a select religion (or few religions) and reject any attempt by a religion to make that determination for themselves.

I am all for the gov't getting out of marriage completely. But don't make the claim that my being in favor of gay marriage OR civil unions as my wanting to attack religion in general.

 

[Jarod]

"Upon further consideration, I withdraw the remark in question and stand corrected, there certainly were people in 1864, who thought slaves were equal to whites." - Dixie, July 2006.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The idea that you want the institution of marriage protected from change, even from within a religious organization is how I got to the simple statement I made.

You want marriage preserved as it is in a select religion (or few religions) and reject any attempt by a religion to make that determination for themselves.

I am all for the gov't getting out of marriage completely. But don't make the claim that my being in favor of gay marriage OR civil unions as my wanting to attack religion in general.

I want EVERYTHING protected from change! Words fucking MEAN things! There is no rational or justifiable reason for changing what the word "marriage" means! The ONLY rational or logical reason you could possibly have, is to attack religious institutions! There is nothing else that even makes sense!

I said absolutely NOTHING about what religious institutions could do with regard to marriage, that is entirely up to them, and nothing I have ever advocated interferes with their ability to do whatever they want to do regarding marriage. This is some viewpoint you conjured up from my post, which simply doesn't exist and was never articulated by me!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"Upon further consideration, I withdraw the remark in question and stand corrected, there certainly were people in 1864, who thought slaves were equal to whites." - Dixie, July 2006.

Why are you stuck on this, jarhead? I admit, right here in this very thread, yes... there were people in 1864 who thought slaves were equal to whites! Unfortunately, NONE of them were political figures, or able to be political figures, because the overwhelming majority of an ALL WHITE electorate, fundamentally disagreed with them! What the hell is your point???

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

...you want the institution of marriage protected from change...

I want it removed from purview of the state. I see no fundamental reason for changing the defined meaning of the word, to accommodate a social movement. I realize there are all kinds of names being called against those who oppose gay marriage, but this doesn't matter when it comes to principles. A solution to the social problem exists, our Constitution and Civil Unions legislation. It gives all sides what they desire most, and allows all sides to participate in a resolution to the issue. It is an opportunity for America to set aside partisanship, and correct a social injustice through the will of the people, and not through continued judicial activism.

But.... that isn't what you want! Instead, you want to continue twisting my words, creating an argument, arguing a point, calling me names, keeping the balloon of stupidity suspended a bit longer.... not because you think it will HELP GAY PEOPLE.... but because it is a great opportunity to continue your silent war on religion and God!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I want EVERYTHING protected from change! Words fucking MEAN things! There is no rational or justifiable reason for changing what the word "marriage" means! The ONLY rational or logical reason you could possibly have, is to attack religious institutions! There is nothing else that even makes sense!

I said absolutely NOTHING about what religious institutions could do with regard to marriage, that is entirely up to them, and nothing I have ever advocated interferes with their ability to do whatever they want to do regarding marriage. This is some viewpoint you conjured up from my post, which simply doesn't exist and was never articulated by me!

Ok, I will bite... HOW does redefining the term marriage 'ATTACK' religions?

Now to be clear, I do understand that I am replying to 'I am not a Christian' Dixie at the moment, so if 'I am a Christian' Dixie reads this first, please wait until 'I am not a Christian' Dixie returns before answering.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ok, I will bite... HOW does redefining the term marriage 'ATTACK' religions?

Now to be clear, I do understand that I am replying to 'I am not a Christian' Dixie at the moment, so if 'I am a Christian' Dixie reads this first, please wait until 'I am not a Christian' Dixie returns before answering.

It's obvious, unless you are retarded. Marriage is a widely held religious tradition and custom. Since the actual word "marriage" has nothing to do with what pro-gay-marriage advocates claim to want, there can't be many reasons left to insist upon usage of the word, in the face of an obvious and amicable solution to the issue. Can you come up with some? I can't, and I have racked my brain trying to think of one! The only viable reason I can see, is the intent to attack religious traditions, and religious customs. If that weren't the case, you would drop the issue of "gay marriage" and adopt a more reasonable view, one that has been proposed to you by a conservative, one that solves all the problems and gives both sides what they want.

 

[Onceler]

It's obvious, unless you are retarded. Marriage is a widely held religious tradition and custom. Since the actual word "marriage" has nothing to do with what pro-gay-marriage advocates claim to want, there can't be many reasons left to insist upon usage of the word, in the face of an obvious and amicable solution to the issue. Can you come up with some? I can't, and I have racked my brain trying to think of one! The only viable reason I can see, is the intent to attack religious traditions, and religious customs. If that weren't the case, you would drop the issue of "gay marriage" and adopt a more reasonable view, one that has been proposed to you by a conservative, one that solves all the problems and gives both sides what they want.

You're such a loon.

Marriage is not merely a religious tradition. It has become a cultural tradition, and a way that society recognizes a relationship as forged and solidified.

As someone who is fairly religious, I resent that you are portraying all religions as hopelessly intolerant & bigoted, btw...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You're such a loon.

Marriage is not merely a religious tradition. It has become a cultural tradition, and a way that society recognizes a relationship as forged and solidified.

As someone who is fairly religious, I resent that you are portraying all religions as hopelessly intolerant & bigoted, btw...

I didn't say Marriage was solely a religious tradition. It is, however, a widely regarded part of religious custom and tradition, and vitally important to the institution of religion. We're not arguing whether marriage belongs only to religion, we are debating why you would want to usurp the traditional and customary meaning of "marriage" and my argument is, because you wish to attack religious tradition. That is the only thing that makes logical sense, but rather than admit this, you want to try and twist the debate into something else, claim I said something I never said, and make it about that, instead of providing some support for your view. Thanks for confirming you have no support for your view, and I am 100% correct in my evaluation.

 

[Onceler]

I didn't say Marriage was solely a religious tradition. It is, however, a widely regarded part of religious custom and tradition, and vitally important to the institution of religion. We're not arguing whether marriage belongs only to religion, we are debating why you would want to usurp the traditional and customary meaning of "marriage" and my argument is, because you wish to attack religious tradition. That is the only thing that makes logical sense, but rather than admit this, you want to try and twist the debate into something else, claim I said something I never said, and make it about that, instead of providing some support for your view. Thanks for confirming you have no support for your view, and I am 100% correct in my evaluation.

You often say something like "it's the only thing which makes logical sense," or "it's the only logical conclusion." Since that's bullshit (almost all of the time, but particularly in this case), you should really add "in my warped & stupid mind."

So, it would go something like this: "It's the only logical conclusion, in my warped and stupid mind," or "it's the only thing which makes logical sense, in my warped and stupid mind."

 

[WinterBorn]

I want EVERYTHING protected from change! Words fucking MEAN things! There is no rational or justifiable reason for changing what the word "marriage" means! The ONLY rational or logical reason you could possibly have, is to attack religious institutions! There is nothing else that even makes sense!

I said absolutely NOTHING about what religious institutions could do with regard to marriage, that is entirely up to them, and nothing I have ever advocated interferes with their ability to do whatever they want to do regarding marriage. This is some viewpoint you conjured up from my post, which simply doesn't exist and was never articulated by me!

As long as no religion decides to marry homosexuals? lol

Dixie, either you are demanding that the gov't not allow change, or you are open to changes. You can't have it both ways.

Well, I guess you CAN have it both ways, but that would mean you were anti-gay, and you never seemed that.

 

[WinterBorn]

I want it removed from purview of the state. I see no fundamental reason for changing the defined meaning of the word, to accommodate a social movement.

I agree that the gov't should not be in the marriage business.

But if you remove marriage from the purview of the state, there is no stopping any given religion from performing homosexual marriages.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

As long as no religion decides to marry homosexuals? lol

Dixie, either you are demanding that the gov't not allow change, or you are open to changes. You can't have it both ways.

Well, I guess you CAN have it both ways, but that would mean you were anti-gay, and you never seemed that.

I don't care what religious institutions do, it's none of the state's business anyway, or it shouldn't be. That is the purpose of the First Amendment, if I am not mistaken.

I am not "demanding" anything, moron. I suggested a reasonable and rational solution to the problem, a resolution to this issue which gives all sides what they want and doesn't destroy religious sanctity of marriage in the process. I think it's about the best possible compromise for all parties involved, and there has been no real argument presented against my suggestion.

You continue to try and warp my viewpoint into something I never said, make out like I have posted things I never posted, and continue debating the issue in the face of a reasonable rational solution. You continue to avoid giving any legitimate reason for your position, although you insist it isn't about bashing religion! Well, tell us what the purpose is then? Why do you HAVE to redefine the meaning of traditional marriage, at the expense of resolving the issue? I am still waiting for ANY reasonable explanation!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I agree that the gov't should not be in the marriage business.

But if you remove marriage from the purview of the state, there is no stopping any given religion from performing homosexual marriages.

Is that a problem for you? I have gone on record, I don't care what churches do!

 

[Timshel]

It's not a matter of it being wrong. We can all agree it was wrong, and I have never EVER articulated otherwise. Gay Marriage is nowhere near the same thing, and it is appalling to me, you would compare giving a black man the right to vote and engage in the American political process, is the same thing as offering sanctity and tradition up to homosexuals in order to mock religion. I just don't see where the two things are remotely close to each other.

You were talking about segregation. The comparison is between segregation and gay marriage, not voting rights and gay marriage.

Throughout history, there have not been people in political power, advocating change in our segregationist policy, prior to 1963! It doesn't exist, because black people were shut out of the political process, and it was not an issue, it was presumed and assumed you supported and condoned segregationist policy, because that was how things were in America. No one stood up and said it was bad! Everyone accepted it, and continued to condone it! Again, you want to try and pretend this was some long-standing moral fight, and it really wasn't a fight. Whether politicians and lawmakers openly spoke of support for segregationist policy or not, they did indeed condone and support the status quot for a century. We certainly DID live in a segregate society, and our governmental leadership was duplicitous in fostering and maintaining it.

Of course, there was a fight. Do you think everyone woke up one day and agreed to get rid of segregationist policies? Plenty opposed the status quo prior to 1963. Did they engage in open revolt? No, but that does not imply support.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You were talking about segregation. The comparison is between segregation and gay marriage, not voting rights and gay marriage.

Segregation effectively ended with the passage of the VRA of 1964, and Civil Rights. There is not a comparison between voting rights or segregation, and homosexual marriage. NONE!

Of course, there was a fight. Do you think everyone woke up one day and agreed to get rid of segregationist policies? Plenty opposed the status quo prior to 1963. Did they engage in open revolt? No, but that does not imply support.

They didn't engage in political debate on the issue! They didn't campaign or advocate for the issue! They didn't put the issue in their national platforms! It may not signify support for segregationist policies, but it sure doesn't imply there was a fight against them. You can say that "plenty opposed" the status quot when it came to segregation, but it wasn't "plenty" or the law would have changed, politicians would have campaigned on the issue, people would have initiated change, had that been the case. Let's tell the truth, shall we? Aside from a few black activists and a few pinhead liberal elites, no one in America was advocating against segregation until the early 60s.

 

[Socrtease]

It's not a matter of it being wrong. We can all agree it was wrong, and I have never EVER articulated otherwise. Gay Marriage is nowhere near the same thing, and it is appalling to me, you would compare giving a black man the right to vote and engage in the American political process, is the same thing as offering sanctity and tradition up to homosexuals in order to mock religion. I just don't see where the two things are remotely close to each other.

Throughout history, there have not been people in political power, advocating change in our segregationist policy, prior to 1963! It doesn't exist, because black people were shut out of the political process, and it was not an issue, it was presumed and assumed you supported and condoned segregationist policy, because that was how things were in America. No one stood up and said it was bad! Everyone accepted it, and continued to condone it! Again, you want to try and pretend this was some long-standing moral fight, and it really wasn't a fight. Whether politicians and lawmakers openly spoke of support for segregationist policy or not, they did indeed condone and support the status quot for a century. We certainly DID live in a segregate society, and our governmental leadership was duplicitous in fostering and maintaining it.

You are right about this, and people JUST LIKE YOU Dixie bemoan the Supreme Court for the kind of decision it came to in Brown. You talk about states rights and the will of the people, and if we had relied on the will of the people, people JUST LIKE YOU would have voted to maintain the status quo in Alabama, Georgia, Virginia Mississippi etc. The people would have voted to deny OTHER citizens their right because it was the status quo and blacks were shut out of the political process. THIS IS EXACTLY why the Supreme Court is there. There decision in Brown was one of the single greatest moments in American Jurisprudence and PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU bemoaned it and still do.