Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Republicans really do hate gay people

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by regexcellent View Post
    How about the fact that the Constitution just doesn't have anything to say on the topic of homosexuality? It protects discrimination based on race and sex but not sexual orientation.
    How about the fact that the Constitution just doesn't have anything to say on the topic of hair color? It protects discrimination based on race and sex but not hair color.

    And if you're bald? **** you, you subhuman piece of filth, baldy baldy baldo.
    "My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
    "The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by regexcellent View Post
      How about the fact that the Constitution just doesn't have anything to say on the topic of homosexuality? It protects discrimination based on race and sex but not sexual orientation.
      For the third time. Gay people who are born or naturalized in the United States are covered in the Fourteenth Amendment, even without an explicit mentioning of homosexuality.
      A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Guynemer View Post
        How about the fact that the Constitution just doesn't have anything to say on the topic of hair color? It protects discrimination based on race and sex but not hair color.

        And if you're bald? **** you, you subhuman piece of filth, baldy baldy baldo.
        A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by gribbler View Post
          The anti-miscegenation statutes existed to help preserve the unequal status of blacks. Bans on same-sex marriage exist to perpetuate the unequal status of homosexuals. People don't have a choice about being black, and gays generally don't have a choice in the matter. It is a very close parallel.
          I know! How about this: "Blacks can get married, they just can't marry whites."
          A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by MrFun View Post
            I know! How about this: "Blacks can get married, they just can't marry whites."
            I wonder if anyone claimed that letting blacks marry whites would be a "special privilege"
            "South Africa is a shithole. It used to be a decent place." -Ben Kenobi, sharing his wisdom on world history
            "The electoral college is a disaster for democracy." - Donald J. Trump
            100% WOLF

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Guynemer View Post
              I'm not sure I understand the point of your post; not a failing on your part, I'm sure, but on mine. Can you clarify, especially in regards to my previous post?
              Nah, I wasn't very clear.

              Basically, the argument that opposing gay marriage isn't discriminatory against gays goes as follows:

              1. Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. "Marriage" between two people of the same sex is a different thing from marriage between two people of different sexes.

              2. Gay men are already free to marry women.

              3. Therefore we are not discriminating against them.

              The best response to this is roughly the following:

              "So what? Gay marriage is very similar to regular marriage, gay marriage would make lots of gays very happy, gay marriage would encourage gay men to stay in safer, monogamous relationships, gay marriage would make it easier for gay men to settle down and start adopting and raising children in a safe home. It will cost us nothing. This is a free lunch."

              A poor response to it is some endless jackassish argument over definitions and the historical institution of marriage and blah blah blah. Doubly so because the anti-gay marriage types are basically right that this is in many ways a radical re-framing of the institution of marriage. Which is fine! We've done that before! Married women used to be basically chattel; changing that was also radical.

              The upshot, though, is that they've got a reasonably coherent case that "marriage" and "gay marriage" are sufficiently different things that it's not discrimination to only offer one of them.

              Analogy: imagine the government gave everyone a free pizza. If someone complained that this discriminated against people who prefer hamburgers, you would roll your eyes.

              You and I agree that their argument is a bad argument, that it's not relevant, that treating "marriage" and "gay marriage" as fundamentally different things is pointless, and that the anti-gay marriage folks are by and large actually just bigots. But the courts shouldn't be making that call. There is a sincere and logically coherent framing in which this isn't discrimination, just stupid policy, and we don't want to let the courts start striking down laws because they are stupid.

              In the long run that leads us towards a world where the court assumes all of the powers of the legislature - it could strike down regulations because it thinks they won't work, rewrite any tax code it thinks is unfair, etc. Separation of powers is supposed to create coequal branches so that they can check each other; for that to work the court has to defer to the legislators outside its narrow area of expertise.

              Comment


              • #97
                btw, Guy, the reason interracial marriage is a bad counterargument to the narrow question ("is this legally discriminatory") is precisely that interracial marriage isn't at all a reframing of the institution. Prohibitions against miscegenation were clearly "artificial".

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post
                  btw, Guy, the reason interracial marriage is a bad counterargument to the narrow question ("is this legally discriminatory") is precisely that interracial marriage isn't at all a reframing of the institution. Prohibitions against miscegenation were clearly "artificial".
                  Of course it was a reframing of the institution. Different races weren't allowed to marry and that's how marriage was defined - a man and woman of the same race.

                  To distinguish it as "not reframing the instituion" is like super weaksauce.

                  Add in discussion that marriage has been defined in different ways from the beginning (especially considering polygamy was quite common in certain cultures - including the Judeo-Christian one - at least among Kings)
                  I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
                  - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Blacks were free to marry when anti-miscegenation laws were in effect. They just could not marry whites. Hence, there was no discrimination with anti-miscegenation laws.
                    A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrFun View Post
                      Blacks were free to marry when anti-miscegenation laws were in effect. They just could not marry whites. Hence, there was no discrimination with anti-miscegenation laws.
                      It's almost as if you can't read.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
                        Uh, courts can't do this.
                        Yes they can if they find part of the state constitution violates the Federal constitution. Like when the SCotUS ruled that seporate but equal/jim crow was illegal even though most of the south required negros to be kept seporate from whites.
                        Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by regexcellent View Post
                          How about the fact that the Constitution just doesn't have anything to say on the topic of homosexuality? It protects discrimination based on race and sex but not sexual orientation.
                          The equal protection clause covers your whining in any event.
                          Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui View Post
                            Of course it was a reframing of the institution. Different races weren't allowed to marry and that's how marriage was defined - a man and woman of the same race.
                            No, it wasn't, Imran. Anti-miscegenation laws had been clearly introduced with the specific intent of proscribing something that would have otherwise been considered well within the traditional notion of marriage. By contrast, the very idea of gay marriage did not exist until recently.

                            Add in discussion that marriage has been defined in different ways from the beginning (especially considering polygamy was quite common in certain cultures - including the Judeo-Christian one - at least among Kings)
                            This is a great argument for why the prohibition on polygamy (as religious discrimination) is more Constitutionally suspect than the non-recognition of gay marriage. It isn't an argument that the institution of marriage doesn't exist or that the word has no definition. The evolution of ideas and language doesn't imply the radical linguistic relativism you're asserting.

                            Comment


                            • Simply reading the ruling which struck down the anti miscegenation laws would provide a proper justification for striking down the anti-gay marriage laws.
                              Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                              Comment


                              • Can we get back to the original point?

                                Which was: Republicans really do hate gay people.

                                Discuss.
                                "My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
                                "The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X