Topic: the shrinking territories of homosexual marriage (Read 35757 times)

Evonus · « **Reply #75 on:** January 28, 2007, 09:16:54 PM »

Quote from: Vespertine on January 28, 2007, 06:45:10 PM

The only way for any of us to make it more socially acceptable is act as though it is acceptable. It's called leading by example and it can have a very positive (or negative if you're setting a bad example) effect. We can and should act in a way that expresses our beliefs. If I believe that homosexuality is acceptable, it is my responsibility to show that through my actions. Nothing will become "more acceptable" if people just ignore that thing because they're waiting for the rest of the world to catch up. And keeping good and loving people from becoming parents because "other kids will make fun" just doesn't work for me. With very fewexceptions, a child that is reared with loving and supportive parents, regardless of the parents' sexual orientation, will be raised with the mental and emotional tools that will turn them into strong and resourceful adults.

I support some methods to make it more acceptable, like homosexual marriage, but by that same logic, I think we have to take it a step at a time. Let homosexuals marry, and give them equal rights in that respect, and then let them work towards adoption. I just feel that we shouldn't be lunging forwards. I think it should be taken a step at a time.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #76 on:** January 28, 2007, 09:26:52 PM »

Like Separate But Equal before removing segregation entirely?

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #77 on:** January 28, 2007, 11:02:56 PM »

Quote from: Evonus on January 28, 2007, 09:16:54 PM

I think it should be taken a step at a time.

Those little steps leave thousands of children in the dust. I understand what you're saying, but I feel that if we cater to the regressive elements of society, nothing worth doing will ever get done.

12AX7 · « **Reply #78 on:** January 28, 2007, 11:07:06 PM »

Society itself is a regressive element. It takes individuals to be progressive; and they will always be ridiculed and made fun of in the beginning.

Evonus · « **Reply #79 on:** January 29, 2007, 01:36:07 PM »

Quote from: Lacerda on January 28, 2007, 11:02:56 PM

Those little steps leave thousands of children in the dust. I understand what you're saying, but I feel that if we cater to the regressive elements of society, nothing worth doing will ever get done.

You have to cater to the regressive elements. People in general don't want change, you have to make it subtle otherwise you'll cause a neoreactionary movement to form that wants everything to go back to "the old days" in which case that group will focus on undoing any progress that was being made. A lovely example of this was after the civil war, trying to make black people and white people considered equal across the board, after blacks were just considered expendable property. Most of the population of the south wasn't even used to recognizing blacks as humans or individuals, and now they were supposed to do that, as well as consider them equal. So you wound up with groups like the KKK forming, which terrorized blacks, and stopped them from voting by intimidation and lynching. This in turn caused life to get even worse for southern blacks than it had even been when they were slaves. It wasn't until the 1960s that real reforms were made and things finally evened out again.

Point being, reconstructions plan for integrating African Americans failed, because it tried to go too fast. Even though you or I do not agree with reactionary elements of society we have to observe them and cater to them (while at the same time not obey them.) And the only way to do this is with gradual change. If you try to go too fast with change you end up even worse off than where you started.

milifist · « **Reply #80 on:** January 29, 2007, 02:05:53 PM »

I don’t think your example really holds up. Perhaps if it had been a calm, peaceful movement where the white majority decided they were finally ready to accept blacks as equals, the example might work. However, the civil rights movement was not peaceful. The whites were still lynching blacks, burning churches and intimidating the black communities to prevent equality. The blacks had to fight for equality. Sure there was a peaceful civil right movement that gets the most attention now, but there was also race riots in most major cities and organized groups of militants. It wasn’t a case where people were ready to accept change, but where they were forced to accept change.

Perhaps that is the route homosexuals should take. They can start stock piling weapons and call themselves the pink panthers...

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #81 on:** January 29, 2007, 03:01:33 PM »

Who would be the Pink Panther Malcolm X?

I sure hope whoever they'd get to make the logo would do a better job than the BPs...that thing looks like something you'd see on an elementary school gym floor.

Evonus · « **Reply #82 on:** January 29, 2007, 03:23:16 PM »

Quote from: milifist on January 29, 2007, 02:05:53 PM

I don’t think your example really holds up. Perhaps if it had been a calm, peaceful movement where the white majority decided they were finally ready to accept blacks as equals, the example might work. However, the civil rights movement was not peaceful. The whites were still lynching blacks, burning churches and intimidating the black communities to prevent equality. The blacks had to fight for equality. Sure there was a peaceful civil right movement that gets the most attention now, but there was also race riots in most major cities and organized groups of militants. It wasn’t a case where people were ready to accept change, but where they were forced to accept change.

Perhaps that is the route homosexuals should take. They can start stock piling weapons and call themselves the pink panthers...

The race riots got the attention, but they were not the changes themselves, which is what I'm trying to emphasize. The measures put in place in the 1960s by LBJ were much more dynamic than the measures instituted by reconstruction. Basically they weren't so basic as to demand equality, it used methods like affirmative action in order to decrease racial profiling, it provided for segregation of schools, ect. Basically it made an attempt to equip blacks with the same privileges whites had had, and then tried to slowly make it more accepted. It didn't demand so many blacks be CEOs of major companies by the end of the program, but it set them up so that they would eventually be there, by giving them the same opportunities as everyone else in the country. This is what had to be done, because on their own white people as a whole in this country would have never decided to accept blacks as their equals. They needed a push to get it going slowly, and then it eventually snow balled and equality continued to rise, as it still does today. The push I believe that is needed in this situation is homosexual marriage, but I think after that is passed and becomes more accepted as a whole then it will be time for other measures.

BizB · « **Reply #83 on:** January 29, 2007, 03:30:51 PM »

Quote

It didn't demand so many blacks be CEOs of major companies by the end of the program, but it set them up so that they would eventually be there, by giving them the same opportunities as everyone else in the country. This is what had to be done, because on their own white people as a whole in this country would have never decided to accept blacks as their equals

Did he just negate his own "argument"?

It's my opinion that he did.

milifist · « **Reply #84 on:** January 29, 2007, 03:47:04 PM »

Quote from: Evonus on January 29, 2007, 03:23:16 PM

The race riots got the attention, but they were not the changes themselves, which is what I'm trying to emphasize. The measures put in place in the 1960s by LBJ were much more dynamic than the measures instituted by reconstruction. Basically they weren't so basic as to demand equality, it used methods like affirmative action in order to decrease racial profiling, it provided for segregation of schools, ect. Basically it made an attempt to equip blacks with the same privileges whites had had, and then tried to slowly make it more accepted. It didn't demand so many blacks be CEOs of major companies by the end of the program, but it set them up so that they would eventually be there, by giving them the same opportunities as everyone else in the country. This is what had to be done, because on their own white people as a whole in this country would have never decided to accept blacks as their equals. They needed a push to get it going slowly, and then it eventually snow balled and equality continued to rise, as it still does today. The push I believe that is needed in this situation is homosexual marriage, but I think after that is passed and becomes more accepted as a whole then it will be time for other measures.

No.

The result of the civil rights movement was the Federal government declaring in no uncertain terms that Blacks must be treated equally under the law. Had it been the way you described it, it wouldn’t have been necessary for the Federal government to send in troops to enforce desegregation.

Evonus · « **Reply #85 on:** January 29, 2007, 03:49:20 PM »

Quote from: BizB on January 29, 2007, 03:30:51 PM

Did he just negate his own "argument"?

It's my opinion that he did.

I can see how you could take things out of context to mean that. However, my entire point was that things were slowly advanced to allow equal rights and a more fair distribution of wealth. The United States government did not just hand out high ranking positions to people with poor education and low experience. They didn't just redistribute wealth, they gave the blacks the ability to rise up the ladder, which requires time and a slowly liberalization of the system. This is why I support some reform with respect to homosexuals, but yet I don't encourage the automatic granting of perfect equality, because even if equality is "given" in a court room, it still needs to be given by the minds of the majority. If the law says one thing, and the general opinion says another the reform has failed. As of this current point in time, although I do not agree with it, homosexuals are not considered equal, I believe they should be given the tools to become equal, but until they are equal I do not believe they should have custody over another life. That's how I feel on the subject. You can legitimately disagree, and I can understand where you are coming from, but I do not share your feelings on the matter.

Evonus · « **Reply #86 on:** January 29, 2007, 03:54:43 PM »

Quote from: milifist on January 29, 2007, 03:47:04 PM

No.

The result of the civil rights movement was the Federal government declaring in no uncertain terms that Blacks must be treated equally under the law. Had it been the way you described it, it wouldn’t have been necessary for the Federal government to send in troops to enforce desegregation.

That didn't happen everywhere. That was only in the areas with the most racial problems. These areas still have the same racial problems, because segregation was incredibly forced, and the minds of the average people were not swayed before hand. There are still a lot of racists in the southern parts of the United States which is where most of the segregation by force took place.

milifist · « **Reply #87 on:** January 29, 2007, 04:13:43 PM »

Either you’re not making your point very clearly, or you don’t really understand what happen with the Civil Rights movement.

Because it seems to me like you are saying that equality was achieved in a gradual piecemeal process where rights where increased correspondingly to the acceptance of black people by the majority, rather than the relatively sweeping sudden change.

Evonus · « **Reply #88 on:** January 29, 2007, 04:27:27 PM »

Quote from: milifist on January 29, 2007, 04:13:43 PM

Either you’re not making your point very clearly, or you don’t really understand what happen with the Civil Rights movement.

Because it seems to me like you are saying that equality was achieved in a gradual piecemeal process where rights where increased correspondingly to the acceptance of black people by the majority, rather than the relatively sweeping sudden change.

In a way that is what I'm saying. Black people did not become equal to white people overnight. It took reforms that affected things over the course of a few generations. black people can now compete with their white counterparts in business and in school because things have gotten better over the course of generations, but during as well as after the 60s blacks were still mostly poor, and very discriminated against in the workplace. The change took place over time. LBJ did not redistribute wealth and demand promotions for black employees, he put reforms in place that would cause these things in future generations. That's what I'm saying about homosexuals and society today. We can't just declare them equal, we have to set a plan in place that will allow them to become equal in subsequent generations.

BizB · « **Reply #89 on:** January 29, 2007, 04:27:49 PM »

In no particular order...
A. I'm not guided by feelings. Part of your problem is that you are.
B. Until the law says they're allowed to be equal, the rights that they're striving for will never be attainable.
3. I don't always use lettered lists
D. Homosexuals already have all of the tools and abilities to "rise up the ladder", it's the legal rights they lack - That's where the problem lies. This isn't about the ability to earn a living or vote or any of the myriad basic human rights we all enjoy.
E. It's my opinion that I'm right and you're wrong. I win.

Evonus · « **Reply #90 on:** January 29, 2007, 04:43:42 PM »

Quote from: BizB on January 29, 2007, 04:27:49 PM

In no particular order...
A. I'm not guided by feelings. Part of your problem is that you are.

Are you kidding? Most people tell me I must have been made in a factory somewhere because I'm like a robot. Even here, I don't understand how wanting things done in a logical progression is being emotional, or being guided by feelings. It's common practice to start out small and get bigger.

Quote

B. Until the law says they're allowed to be equal, the rights that they're striving for will never be attainable.

Agreed, which is why I support gay marriage, and which is why I will eventually support them adopting, but as of now, until they are seen as equal in other areas I don't want them adopting. I don't want the kids to be seen as inferiors because the parents are considered inferior. Once strides in other areas have been made then I think it will be important to implement this, but I think some things need to be done before others, because in a classic relationship it went Marriage -> Kids. I think rights should flow the same way, because a foundation has to be built first.

Quote

3. I don't always use lettered lists

Threw me a curve ball.

Quote

D. Homosexuals already have all of the tools and abilities to "rise up the ladder", it's the legal rights they lack - That's where the problem lies. This isn't about the ability to earn a living or vote or any of the myriad basic human rights we all enjoy.

I wasn't saying they don't. The blacks rising up the ladder things was an example of going too fast(reconstruction) with a reform, and doing things slowly(the great society). It's a different scenario, but the same rules of reform can be applied.

Quote

E. It's my opinion that I'm right and you're wrong. I win.

milifist · « **Reply #91 on:** January 29, 2007, 04:49:07 PM »

Quote from: Evonus on January 29, 2007, 04:27:27 PM

In a way that is what I'm saying. Black people did not become equal to white people overnight. It took reforms that affected things over the course of a few generations. black people can now compete with their white counterparts in business and in school because things have gotten better over the course of generations, but during as well as after the 60s blacks were still mostly poor, and very discriminated against in the workplace. The change took place over time. LBJ did not redistribute wealth and demand promotions for black employees, he put reforms in place that would cause these things in future generations. That's what I'm saying about homosexuals and society today. We can't just declare them equal, we have to set a plan in place that will allow them to become equal in subsequent generations.

The legal recognition of equality happen suddenly. Homosexuals being treated equally under the law is what we are talking about. It is the government’s responsibility to ensure that everyone is treated equally under the law.

Legal equality is separate from social equality. It isn’t the government’s responsibility to make everyone accept people of different sexual orientation (or race for that matter) as equals. Bigotry is allowed, discrimination isn’t. It is also not the government’s job to take public opinion into account when there is discrimination.

BizB · « **Reply #92 on:** January 29, 2007, 04:50:01 PM »

Simple question: What is standing in the way of homosexuals becoming socially accepted sufficiently (to your satisfaction) to be allowed to adopt?

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #93 on:** January 29, 2007, 04:59:25 PM »

Fred Phelps?

BizB · « **Reply #94 on:** January 29, 2007, 05:03:18 PM »

GAWD WARRIOR!

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #95 on:** January 29, 2007, 05:14:47 PM »

Somebody with an extremely good sense of humour should make Westboro Baptist Church: The Musical. Damn that could be hiliarious if handled correctly.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #96 on:** January 29, 2007, 06:48:58 PM »

Quote from: Agent_Tachyon on January 28, 2007, 09:26:52 PM

Like Separate But Equal before removing segregation entirely?

+1

Doh.

Sorry, you can't repeat a karma action without waiting 1 hours.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #97 on:** January 29, 2007, 06:59:18 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes on January 29, 2007, 06:48:58 PM

+1

Doh.

Sorry, you can't repeat a karma action without waiting 1 hours.

Oops...I posted that a bit early...I hate causality.

Vespertine · « **Reply #98 on:** January 29, 2007, 07:15:21 PM »

Quote from: Evonus on January 29, 2007, 04:43:42 PM

<snip>
I don't want the kids to be seen as inferiors because the parents are considered inferior.
<snip>

Someone else brought this up earlier, and I'm going to bring it up again. By your logic, dwarves should not be allowed to adopt. Mixed race couples should not be allowed to adopt. Black people should not be allowed to adopt white babies, and vice versa. Fat people should not be allowed to adopt. Poor people should not be allowed to adopt. All of these categories of people are viewed by many as inferior or too different to be acceptable. Why should any of them be allowed to adopt? Their children will undoubtedly by harassed far more than others, and isn't that the crux of your argument?

xolik · « **Reply #99 on:** January 29, 2007, 07:46:32 PM »

Obviously only straight, wealthy, white landowners should have the ability to ~~vote~~ adopt.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: the shrinking territories of homosexual marriage (Read 35757 times)

12AX7