Gov. Perry of Texas to gay veterans: Don't come home.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Your practical choices come down to accept it the way it is, for the indefinite future, or move someplace with a more favorable political landscape. Or do neither and whine without the slightest effect - that's the option Perry forgot.

The other choice is to fight for change in spite of the odds. Thank god black activists and white supporters did not give up in the 1950s because of the odds they faced.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat You're dealing with a much more deeply entrenched mentality here that is far more hung up about sex than Canada or western Europe, and that feels that decriminalization of sodomy is a major concession. I don't see that changing on a national scale for way longer than my grandkids lifespan, and they're not even born yet.

I would defer to your much greater experience with the area but a part of me still sees a hundred years as an incredibly long time. This area had and still has incredible racial hangups as well yet legal equality is entrenched. Why could not the same happen with regard to homosexuals? (Particularly if in 50 years from now some court rules that legislatation preventing gay marriage is null ) Plus there will be gay married couples in texas when people who marry in other states move there

[Atahualpa]

MrFun doesn't give up

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Flubber


I would defer to your much greater experience with the area but a part of me still sees a hundred years as an incredibly long time. This area had and still has incredible racial hangups as well yet legal equality is entrenched. Why could not the same happen with regard to homosexuals? (Particularly if in 50 years from now some court rules that legislatation preventing gay marriage is null ) Plus there will be gay married couples in texas when people who marry in other states move there

California has no particular race history on a magnitude with the segregationist south or industrial-ghetto blacks compete with immigrants in the bottem-end labor pool cities of the north.

Schwarzenegger is the only statewide office Republican, and that only because of the loathing for Gray Davis. The state legislatures are ~60% democrat, and conservatives nationwide love to rant about the liberal California courts and the 9th Circuit, which is based in San Francisco. Despite all that, gay marriage hasn't passed here, and probably won't for a long time.

In 100 years, I'll agree with you that gay marriage will have a lot more local acceptance in many communities and more states accepting it, but nothing at the Federal level, and nothing of significance in a majority of states.

Mainstream Christian doctrine isn't going to change, and especially evangelical conservatice Christian doctrine and Catholic doctrine. People still see it as "special rights" a behavioral issue (as opposed to simply having different skin color), and all sorts of other things they can rely on to justify a view that it's "sinful" "abnormal" "perverse" etc. For the Christian right political ilk, it's a goldmine - fudgepackers trying to destroy our families so they can get their clutches on our poor children - and all that rabid drivel. 100 years from now, this same part of the country is still going to be debating evolution in the schools and God in state office buildings.

[MrFun]

In 1850, no white American could say with a serious face that slavery will be abolished in 15 years.


Guess what happened?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun
In 1850, no white American could say with a serious face that slavery will be abolished in 15 years.


Guess what happened?

A war that killed hundreds of thousands, and a major motivation for the "abolition" was to break the economic and political power of the plantation owning whites, not benevolent concern for darkies.

But keep hanging on to that tired rhetorical comparison - it's about as relevant as commies proclaiming the coming revolution.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat




A war that killed hundreds of thousands, and a major motivation for the "abolition" was to break the economic and political power of the plantation owning whites, not benevolent concern for darkies.

But keep hanging on to that tired rhetorical comparison - it's about as relevant as commies proclaiming the coming revolution.

I guess I have some faith left in the belief that many individuals have the capacity for justice and fairness. If there are some benefits for the North that went with abolition of slavery, that is irrelevant, IMO -- the greater good was abolishment of slavery.

The fact that it had to cost more than 600,000 American lives because of Southern treason is tragic. But on the other hand, it resulted in greater justice for African-Americans. But that also would not materialize fully until a century after the Civil War.


Just because a group of people may benefit from achieving an ultimate good, does not make that ultimate good unjustified.

[MrFun]

Also, to deny that there were individuals in the antebellum period who were sincerely anti-racist and sincerely embraced human equality, is to depreciate human capacity for justice.

In every period of human history, in every part of the world, in regards to any significant social issue, there were always people brave enough to believe in the principle of fairness and justice.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Who denied anything? I just spoke to the motivation of the Yankee political leadership.

And there was no southern treason, we were an independent nation subjected to acts of war. Sorry if you people didn't bother to make your unexpressed views of secession a little more apparent - in that case, you'd have happily been able to go your own way from the outset, because there's no way in hell any southern state would have ratified any document which abrogated their sovereignty and made them subordinate to a pseudocollective power.

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by MrFun

OMFGG SOUTHERN TRESON 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!1!1!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun


I guess I have some faith left in the belief that many individuals have the capacity for justice and fairness. If there are some benefits for the North that went with abolition of slavery, that is irrelevant, IMO -- the greater good was abolishment of slavery.

And this is all relevant to gay marriage how, exactly?

Are you in a condition of forced, non-penal servitude?

Are you excluded from the voting franchise?

Are you excluded from testifying or suing in court?

Are you excluded from being able to independently contract for the ownership of property?

Oh, you can't marry someone of the same gender. But then we all know that Gawd intended marriage to be between a man and a woman, and homos have the same rights as anyone else, they just don't deserve special rights, blah blah blah.

As long as you keep barking up the slavery tree, that ol' possum is gonna just saunter on down the road there while you're barkin' at nothin'.

Just because a group of people may benefit from achieving an ultimate good, does not make that ultimate good unjustified.

Nobody's justifying slavery. Just speaking to the intent of the 13th amendment ratifiers.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Schwarzenegger is the only statewide office Republican, and that only because of the loathing for Gray Davis. The state legislatures are ~60% democrat, and conservatives nationwide love to rant about the liberal California courts and the 9th Circuit, which is based in San Francisco. Despite all that, gay marriage hasn't passed here, and probably won't for a long time.

20 years is an eternity on some issues though. I doubt 20 years sgo you could even get the issue of gay marriage SERIOUSLY discussed. Now its front-burner in several states and almost a fait accompli in Canada.

I just see the attitudes of young people as being very different on this issue than that of their parents. California might take all of the next 20 years but I have little doubt it will pass there

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
In 100 years, I'll agree with you that gay marriage will have a lot more local acceptance in many communities and more states accepting it, but nothing at the Federal level, and nothing of significance in a majority of states.

I predict more change than you but who knows? The only thing I am certain of is that neither of our predictions will be completely correct

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Mainstream Christian doctrine isn't going to change, and especially evangelical conservatice Christian doctrine and Catholic doctrine. People still see it as "special rights" a behavioral issue (as opposed to simply having different skin color), and all sorts of other things they can rely on to justify a view that it's "sinful" "abnormal" "perverse" etc. For the Christian right political ilk, it's a goldmine - fudgepackers trying to destroy our families so they can get their clutches on our poor children - and all that rabid drivel. 100 years from now, this same part of the country is still going to be debating evolution in the schools and God in state office buildings.

Hmm-- but some churches have already started to change. The United Church in Canada has already moved in this area in significant ways ( and causing a rift in the church). Some others churches will move as well but I agree that most won't. There will certainly be many battles fought on this over the next few years. I just see a slow process of acceptance that leads to it passing in the NE and California and then into the urban parts of the rest of the country. Once 10-20 states allow gay marriage I think there will be an attempt to ensure that they are recognized across the country even in states that do not marry homosexuals.

The fight may be long, it may span the next 3 generations but I believe that in the end, the churches and the rightists are losing ground and will continue to give grudgingly foot by painful foot over a period of decades

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
In 1850, no white American could say with a serious face that slavery will be abolished in 15 years.

Guess what happened?

Are you expecting us to have a civil war for you?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
A war that killed hundreds of thousands, and a major motivation for the "abolition" was to break the economic and political power of the plantation owning whites, not benevolent concern for darkies.

I think it's time to beat up the South again.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Are you expecting us to have a civl war for you?

Now here is a stupid question. Of course not.