Segregation now, segregation forever!

Of course, these very words from the late Democrat George C. Wallace, are inflammatory and racist, in context of today's American society. We hear them, and we cringe in discomfort, as the obvious racial bigotry shines through, and we have to do something to help us cope with the guilt of knowing a white man ever even uttered these words! So we canonize Wallace as a southern racist bigot, who just didn't get it. In fact, anyone who "supported segregation" is tarnished and scorned, because we have to find a way to excuse ourselves for the truth.

The truth is, we began life in a segregated society at the end of the Civil War. For an entire century, our society was indeed segregated, adopted and maintained segregationist policies, and supported continued segregationist policies in every phase of government, which was completely controlled by whites. We were segregationists through the end of the 1800s, into the 1900s, through two world wars... we sent black soldiers to fight and die for America, and returned them home to sit on the back of the bus. We did this in the South, North, East and West! There was nowhere we didn't practice segregation and discrimination against black Americans! This WAS the law!

When we hear Liberals speak today, of political pasts... we often hear "he supported segregation!" As if, 'segregation' were this obscure radical idea some southern rednecks adopted, and wanted to impose on the rest of the free and uninhibited, open-minded people of America! As if some Bubba had said, ya know what'd be a good idear, if we segregated them ni**ers from the whites! To hear liberals speak of it, that is what you would think Segregation were all about! They fail to comprehend that we lived in a completely segregate society! We had lived in it for 100 years! It was the way things were!

People who were "supportive of segregation", were merely supporting the popular status quot, what had always been the practice, what society had accepted and maintained for 100 years! To not support segregation policy, was radical! THAT was the radical view, THAT was viewed as being controversial. What's more, blacks were not a factor in getting elected, so the politicians would have been politically stupid NOT to support segregationist policies! The truth, as ugly as it may be, is that every politician prior to 1965, is responsible for supporting segregationist policy, because they DID! Repeatedly! For a century, every president, every Congress, and every Judge they appointed, upheld and maintained a system of complete and total segregation in America!

This FACT and TRUTH needs to be realized and understood by ALL! Because, frankly, we are in danger of losing focus on the magnitude of Civil Rights. Does it not bother black people, that Liberals have perverted the meaning of "segregation" into a petty insulate retort thrown at Republicans to convey a sense of racism which doesn't exist? Is it not important they have somewhat marginalized Civil Rights, and made it far less historically significant, in order to politicize conservatism? This would really bug me if I were a black American.

Abraham Lincoln, The Great Emancipator, did not make blacks and whites equal in society, in fact, Lincoln opposed the very idea of it, (see: Lincoln/Douglas debates), so as great as his achievements are, Lincoln was also a staunch segregationist. So were all the presidents to follow, including the beloved liberal FDR! They ALL supported and condoned a policy of complete segregation across America!

The segregation prior to 1964 has ended. The wall will never go up again! Blacks are now a vital part of the political process, as well as those who support black interests. Civil Rights was indeed significant in changing the politics of America forever, and it has been monumental in doing so! Some people like to pretend it was always this way, except for a brief period in the mid 60s, when racist rednecks wanted to segregate society, and the Great Liberals stood with the blacks to defeat them!
 
the village idiot checks in with a vote that racism doesn't exits.
I will support Dixie's move to the comedy channel, I'll make a fortune with educated liberals laughing thier asses off at this NASCAR redneck.
 
Aaaaaaaand.....Dixie finally acknowledges that Lott was actually talking about segregation.

Big step for you, Dix.
 
Aaaaaaaand.....Dixie finally acknowledges that Lott was actually talking about segregation.

Big step for you, Dix.

Don't see where I admitted any such thing. I didn't mention Lott.

I will say this, the examples of Liberals hurling the "Strom supported segregation" bomb at Trent, is precisely what I am talking about here. You've relegated "segregation" to this isolated southern racist policy that no one supported and everyone rejected, and that wasn't the case. That ISN'T the truth. You AREN'T being honest!

The truth is, Strom, in 1948, would have been a political idiot to have NOT supported segregationist policies, as ALL his voters and colleagues ALSO supported it! No one in their right political mind, in 1948, would have been opposed to segregation! That is the nasty little secret you don't want people to realize! It wasn't something that was attempting to be enacted, it was already the way things were in America!
 
Of course, these very words from the late Democrat George C. Wallace, are inflammatory and racist, in context of today's American society. We hear them, and we cringe in discomfort, as the obvious racial bigotry shines through, and we have to do something to help us cope with the guilt of knowing a white man ever even uttered these words! So we canonize Wallace as a southern racist bigot, who just didn't get it. In fact, anyone who "supported segregation" is tarnished and scorned, because we have to find a way to excuse ourselves for the truth.

The truth is, we began life in a segregated society at the end of the Civil War. For an entire century, our society was indeed segregated, adopted and maintained segregationist policies, and supported continued segregationist policies in every phase of government, which was completely controlled by whites. We were segregationists through the end of the 1800s, into the 1900s, through two world wars... we sent black soldiers to fight and die for America, and returned them home to sit on the back of the bus. We did this in the South, North, East and West! There was nowhere we didn't practice segregation and discrimination against black Americans! This WAS the law!

When we hear Liberals speak today, of political pasts... we often hear "he supported segregation!" As if, 'segregation' were this obscure radical idea some southern rednecks adopted, and wanted to impose on the rest of the free and uninhibited, open-minded people of America! As if some Bubba had said, ya know what'd be a good idear, if we segregated them ni**ers from the whites! To hear liberals speak of it, that is what you would think Segregation were all about! They fail to comprehend that we lived in a completely segregate society! We had lived in it for 100 years! It was the way things were!

People who were "supportive of segregation", were merely supporting the popular status quot, what had always been the practice, what society had accepted and maintained for 100 years! To not support segregation policy, was radical! THAT was the radical view, THAT was viewed as being controversial. What's more, blacks were not a factor in getting elected, so the politicians would have been politically stupid NOT to support segregationist policies! The truth, as ugly as it may be, is that every politician prior to 1965, is responsible for supporting segregationist policy, because they DID! Repeatedly! For a century, every president, every Congress, and every Judge they appointed, upheld and maintained a system of complete and total segregation in America!

This FACT and TRUTH needs to be realized and understood by ALL! Because, frankly, we are in danger of losing focus on the magnitude of Civil Rights. Does it not bother black people, that Liberals have perverted the meaning of "segregation" into a petty insulate retort thrown at Republicans to convey a sense of racism which doesn't exist? Is it not important they have somewhat marginalized Civil Rights, and made it far less historically significant, in order to politicize conservatism? This would really bug me if I were a black American.

Abraham Lincoln, The Great Emancipator, did not make blacks and whites equal in society, in fact, Lincoln opposed the very idea of it, (see: Lincoln/Douglas debates), so as great as his achievements are, Lincoln was also a staunch segregationist. So were all the presidents to follow, including the beloved liberal FDR! They ALL supported and condoned a policy of complete segregation across America!

The segregation prior to 1964 has ended. The wall will never go up again! Blacks are now a vital part of the political process, as well as those who support black interests. Civil Rights was indeed significant in changing the politics of America forever, and it has been monumental in doing so! Some people like to pretend it was always this way, except for a brief period in the mid 60s, when racist rednecks wanted to segregate society, and the Great Liberals stood with the blacks to defeat them!

Supporting something that is wrong, even if it is the status quo, is still wrong. 20 years from now, being against gay marriage will be as bad as being a segregationist.

Throught our history there have been people who stood up to the fact that segregation and racism was bad, it was not until the 1960's that the idea took hold and society changed.

On a side note, I knew Gov. Wallace. While he used racial politics to gain his positions, (he was on both sides of the issue depending on what was the best way to get elected) personally he was a kind, gentle and honest man. I never discussed his position on race, but judging from those he was friendly with, I would assume that he felt balck people were deserving of kindness and fair treatment much in the way children are so deserving.
 
Supporting something that is wrong, even if it is the status quo, is still wrong. 20 years from now, being against gay marriage will be as bad as being a segregationist.

Throught our history there have been people who stood up to the fact that segregation and racism was bad, it was not until the 1960's that the idea took hold and society changed.

On a side note, I knew Gov. Wallace. While he used racial politics to gain his positions, (he was on both sides of the issue depending on what was the best way to get elected) personally he was a kind, gentle and honest man. I never discussed his position on race, but judging from those he was friendly with, I would assume that he felt balck people were deserving of kindness and fair treatment much in the way children are so deserving.

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.
 
... 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.

You think people support gay marriage in order to mock religion?

If that is what you actually believe, you have your head buried in the sand.
 
You think people support gay marriage in order to mock religion?

If that is what you actually believe, you have your head buried in the sand.

It's the only reasonable explanation for not supporting Civil Unions. We've had the debate, the thread is still open if you'd like to present one, but no one could come up with any other reason to support "Gay Marriage" other than slapping at religion. A solution to the problem has been offered, and you've rejected it because you can't steal religious sanctity, which is your ultimate goal and reason for supporting this issue. It's not about helping homosexual couples, who could be realizing benefits right now, with CU legislation.

Liberals want to compare Civil Rights with Gay Marriage, and I think Gay Marriage is more comparable to the failed ERA of the 1970s. Where we, as a society, realized that we didn't need an Amendment, we already have the mechanism in place to address the problem and it was a matter of implementing the mechanism to solve the problem. Perhaps this is why Liberals have such a shallow respect for Civil Rights, they presume it was this issue like Gay Marriage, when it was something much greater. There was no mechanism before 1964 and the Voting Rights Act. There was no way to address the problem. And even in the advent of CRA, it has not solved the problem of racial prejudice in America, that problem still exists.
 
It's the only reasonable explanation for not supporting Civil Unions. We've had the debate, the thread is still open if you'd like to present one, but no one could come up with any other reason to support "Gay Marriage" other than slapping at religion. A solution to the problem has been offered, and you've rejected it because you can't steal religious sanctity, which is your ultimate goal and reason for supporting this issue. It's not about helping homosexual couples, who could be realizing benefits right now, with CU legislation.

Liberals want to compare Civil Rights with Gay Marriage, and I think Gay Marriage is more comparable to the failed ERA of the 1970s. Where we, as a society, realized that we didn't need an Amendment, we already have the mechanism in place to address the problem and it was a matter of implementing the mechanism to solve the problem. Perhaps this is why Liberals have such a shallow respect for Civil Rights, they presume it was this issue like Gay Marriage, when it was something much greater. There was no mechanism before 1964 and the Voting Rights Act. There was no way to address the problem. And even in the advent of CRA, it has not solved the problem of racial prejudice in America, that problem still exists.

Most of the people in the debates here have supported Civil Unions. And the idea that the gov't should not be involved in either civil unions or marriages has a great deal of support.

You are lumping everyone on the pro gay marriage side together. This is no more rational than lumping those who, like you, oppose gay marriage with those who think gays should not even be allowed to have civil unions with those who demand that the gov't stay involved in marriage.

I don't know of a single person who wants gay marriage to be legal who does so to take a shot at religion.
 
It's ludicrous to suggest that anyone who wants the extra step of marriage just wants to take a shot at religion.

If you hear actual homosexuals speak on the topic, they just want to be treated like everyone else. You can say that civil unions provide the same rights, but that ignores how they might view the institution of marriage. They want to get married for the same reasons heterosexual couples do.
 
It's ludicrous to suggest that anyone who wants the extra step of marriage just wants to take a shot at religion.

If you hear actual homosexuals speak on the topic, they just want to be treated like everyone else. You can say that civil unions provide the same rights, but that ignores how they might view the institution of marriage. They want to get married for the same reasons heterosexual couples do.

But here is the thing, no matter what way you wish to force society to act with regard to homosexuals, it will not change bigoted attitudes. Civil Unions provide everything a homosexual couple would need to be treated just as equally to straight or traditional married couples. The only aspect missing, is the usage of the word "marriage" which is a largely religious ceremonial event in America. Now you assure me it is not about taking any slap at religion, yet the problem can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, without usurping traditional marriage, and you refuse to listen. The only logical and rational conclusion, is that you want to attack religion and a religious tradition.
 
But here is the thing, no matter what way you wish to force society to act with regard to homosexuals, it will not change bigoted attitudes. Civil Unions provide everything a homosexual couple would need to be treated just as equally to straight or traditional married couples. The only aspect missing, is the usage of the word "marriage" which is a largely religious ceremonial event in America. Now you assure me it is not about taking any slap at religion, yet the problem can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, without usurping traditional marriage, and you refuse to listen. The only logical and rational conclusion, is that you want to attack religion and a religious tradition.

Typical Dixielogic. I swear, you are such a moron.

I am on record supporting civil unions, and saying that I don't think the country is ready for gay marriage yet. I'm just relating to you what I have heard and what I understand about the homosexual viewpoint on the matter. Many in that community don't want to be treated any differently than hetrosexuals, and think that, by being excluded from a tradition like marriage, it is a form of discrimination.

Their arguments certainly have merit. I doubt most heterosexuals would be okay with it if you took away their right to marriage, gave them civil unions and explained "what's the big deal? You're still getting all the rights you would with marriage..."
 
Typical Dixielogic. I swear, you are such a moron.

I am on record supporting civil unions, and saying that I don't think the country is ready for gay marriage yet. I'm just relating to you what I have heard and what I understand about the homosexual viewpoint on the matter. Many in that community don't want to be treated any differently than hetrosexuals, and think that, by being excluded from a tradition like marriage, it is a form of discrimination.

Their arguments certainly have merit. I doubt most heterosexuals would be okay with it if you took away their right to marriage, gave them civil unions and explained "what's the big deal? You're still getting all the rights you would with marriage..."

You can claim you are on the record supporting CU, but you still advocate for Gay Marriage. That's even worse... you support the solution, but still want to continue the fight and debate? That makes no rational sense, why not resolve the problem, if you have found the solution?

The argument you are presenting, has no merit. We know from past history, passage of a law to make gay marriage legal, is not going to change the hearts and minds of bigoted Americans who will continue to discriminate against homosexuals. In fact, you can't even pass a law, the public is so against what you are trying to do! You've tried in state after state, and it has failed, in even the most liberal of bastions. It's all a wonderful sentiment for you to think the issue of gay marriage will usher in acceptance of the gay community, but history shows us that it won't. You're living in a world of make believe and fantasy.
 
But here is the thing, no matter what way you wish to force society to act with regard to homosexuals, it will not change bigoted attitudes. Civil Unions provide everything a homosexual couple would need to be treated just as equally to straight or traditional married couples. The only aspect missing, is the usage of the word "marriage" which is a largely religious ceremonial event in America. Now you assure me it is not about taking any slap at religion, yet the problem can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, without usurping traditional marriage, and you refuse to listen. The only logical and rational conclusion, is that you want to attack religion and a religious tradition.


Standard issue, Dixie produced meadowmuffins.

And, it goes without saying...pure, unadulterated horseshit.

Homosexuals want to get married so they too may share the bond formed when two people STAND BEFORE GOD and pledge to love and honor one another.

Your "logical and rational conclusion" is totally without merit.

Why shouldn't two homosexuals in love stand before God and take part in a religious ceremonial event that celebrates and binds their love?
 
I doubt most heterosexuals would be okay with it if you took away their right to marriage, gave them civil unions and explained "what's the big deal? You're still getting all the rights you would with marriage..."

In essence, that IS what I proposed! Remove all government acknowledgment of "marriage" of ANY kind! Allow "marriage" to remain a religiously-based sanctified event, or whatever the individual wants to view it as, and remove government completely. They neither endorse or deny "gay marriage" or any other kind of marriage. If there is any governmental administration, it should be a generic partnership of domestic nature, and nothing more. If we are going to continue filing tax as JOINT and SINGLE, then JOIN will simply come to mean any 2 JOINT taxpayers, without regard to relationship or "marital" status. This is the idea I presented for Civil Unions, and the only people who really didn't agree with me, were those who simply wanted to continue attacking religion.
 
But here is the thing, no matter what way you wish to force society to act with regard to homosexuals, it will not change bigoted attitudes. Civil Unions provide everything a homosexual couple would need to be treated just as equally to straight or traditional married couples. The only aspect missing, is the usage of the word "marriage" which is a largely religious ceremonial event in America. Now you assure me it is not about taking any slap at religion, yet the problem can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, without usurping traditional marriage, and you refuse to listen. The only logical and rational conclusion, is that you want to attack religion and a religious tradition.


So THAT'S the real reason you and your ilk don't want homosexuals marrying!

You're scared of the bigoted homophoes!!

It's more important to you to placate their irrational hatred than to stand up for what's right for all
 
Standard issue, Dixie produced meadowmuffins.

And, it goes without saying...pure, unadulterated horseshit.

Homosexuals want to get married so they too may share the bond formed when two people STAND BEFORE GOD and pledge to love and honor one another.

Your "logical and rational conclusion" is totally without merit.

Why shouldn't two homosexuals in love stand before God and take part in a religious ceremonial event that celebrates and binds their love?

Can you tell me where in America it is illegal to "stand before God" and do anything? In what state is it illegal to pledge something to another? I didn't realized these laws had been passed in America, was it a Democrat initiative?
 
The argument you are presenting, has no merit. We know from past history, passage of a law to make gay marriage legal, is not going to change the hearts and minds of bigoted Americans who will continue to discriminate against homosexuals.


Big deal!

We passed a law giving African Americans and women the right to vote KNOWING there would still be bigots who STILL DISCRIMINATE.

YOUR ARGUMENT has no merit.
 
Last edited:
Dixie you sound like a voice from the past yelling separate but equal. You claim that to support gay marriage is to take a shot at religion but there are several religious organisations in the US right now that marry people of the same gender. Unitarian Universalists do, Wiccans do. What you want is IF the government is going to recognize marriages then the government should recognize marriage as a religious union but ONLY among SOME religious groups. That sounds a great deal like recognizing only certain religions. Ok to recognize CATHOLIC marriages but not Unitarian Universalist marriages. Religion is one of those things that the framers did not want to suffer from the vagueries of majoritarianism. There are plenty of relgious groups that already perform marriage cerimonies for same sex partners, so your religious argument fails horribly.
 
Can you tell me where in America it is illegal to "stand before God" and do anything? In what state is it illegal to pledge something to another? I didn't realized these laws had been passed in America, was it a Democrat initiative?

Can you tell me where I said it was illegal to stand before God?

Thx for ignoring the points I made and trying to change the direction of the conversation.
 
Back
Top