The Moral Arc

[Ben Kenobi]

Lawrence in 2003 (though there were probably others in the interim between the trials). Thus Lawrence v Texas. Which ended state sodomy laws.

You might want to read about the case. It's an interesting one. Lawrence's homosexual lover filed a false police report in 1998. Lawrence spent the night in jail and was released in the morning.

The case should never have gotten to trial. It went to trial because Lawrence's lawyers wanted to attack the Texas laws. Seems pretty clear to me that if the worst thing was spending a night in jail, that's hardly persecution.

Especially given the six figure fines that have been levied against Christian bakers.

[Ben Kenobi]

Trump's stated goal for SCOTUS is to overturn Roe v Wade. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree whether it should be overturned or not, it is obviously an issue which affects women.

Given that it kills about 500 thousand girls a year, I hardly see how opposition to Roe is anti-women. Say what you will, there are plenty of prolife ladies.

[Ben Kenobi]

it's voter IDs and closing polling places and other roundabout ways to the same end.

Canada has voting laws that require obtaining an ID. Are you arguing that Canada is racist? Sheesh. ID is not hard to get.

[Berzerker]

Like I said before, that heroine that was taken off the street sometimes prevents new addicts. That junky that get's busted again sometimes gets clean finally even in jail.

that heroin was replaced and murder rates soon doubled under Reagan's drug war

What was the homicide rate in poor black neighborhoods over the 20 years following WWII (or the 20 years before it, like under alcohol prohibition)? What was the level of gang activity? Were the jails filled with younger black people? The drug war brought us more murder, more gangs, and more crime.

You never did respond to that

[Aeson]

Given that it kills about 500 thousand girls a year, I hardly see how opposition to Roe is anti-women. Say what you will, there are plenty of prolife ladies.

strawman

[Aeson]

Canada has voting laws that require obtaining an ID. Are you arguing that Canada is racist? Sheesh. ID is not hard to get.

Republicans specifically designed those laws so as to keep as many black Americans from voting as they possibly could. That is racist, regardless of who else does similar and for what reason.

[Aeson]

The case should never have gotten to trial.

Yes, we're all agreed that sodomy laws are horrible and stupid. Which makes it all the more appalling that people like you want to justify bringing them back.

Seems pretty clear to me that if the worst thing was spending a night in jail, that's hardly persecution.

Being arrested and jailed for no good reason is persecution. As is having a criminal record for no good reason. As is having to live in fear that if you're found out those things will happen to you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Republicans specifically designed those laws so as to keep as many black Americans from voting as they possibly could. That is racist, regardless of who else does similar and for what reason.

Jim Crow was a Democrat. There's nothing racist about requiring photo ID when voting. Unless of course you believe that black people are less capable of obtaining ID.

[Ben Kenobi]

Being arrested and jailed for no good reason is persecution. As is having a criminal record for no good reason. As is having to live in fear that if you're found out those things will happen to you.

Uh, it was his homosexual lover who called the cops on him by filing a false police report. I'm not quite sure why he would live in fear of persecution.

[Aeson]

He'll rescind Obama's transgender school stuff for sure, and . . . well, gay marriage might get rescinded, which would push it back to the states, half of whom would suddenly absorb a certain number of marriage-minded gay people. I'd say "a lot" of marriage-minded gay people, but let's get serious, there ain't that many of them all together, and if you whittle it down to those who are actually interested in getting married in the near future that puts their numbers somewhat too low to be noticed against the background noise of population growth.

Upending people's lives, forcing them to choose between being able to get married or keeping their jobs, homes, land, or proximity to family/friends is not acceptable. Adoption goes along with marriage (as ruled), so it would also affect whether or not homosexuals can adopt, and may even mean homosexuals losing custody of their adopted children. It's not acceptable. Not even as a "might".

If this was a "might" for heterosexual marriages there would be barricades in the streets. You'd be firmly against it. Anyone sane would be.

[Ben Kenobi]

Upending people's lives, forcing them to choose between being able to get married or keeping their jobs, homes, land, or proximity to family/friends is not acceptable.

Really? Tell that to Barronelle Stutzmann. Apparently it's perfectly a-ok to force people to choose between their conscience and keeping their business.

If this was a "might" for heterosexual marriages there would be barricades in the streets. You'd be firmly against it. Anyone sane would be.

Actually, it has already happened. There's been cases where the actual mother has lost custody to her 'partner' who has no biological relation to the child. Look at the Miller vs Jenkins case. Miller, thankfully has managed to keep her daughter.

[Kidlicious]

that heroin was replaced and murder rates soon doubled under Reagan's drug war

What was the homicide rate in poor black neighborhoods over the 20 years following WWII (or the 20 years before it, like under alcohol prohibition)? What was the level of gang activity? Were the jails filled with younger black people? The drug war brought us more murder, more gangs, and more crime.

You never did respond to that

The murder rate has decreased significantly, same with cocaine usage.

[Kidlicious]

At this point I wonder how many dems would approve of Obama declaring martial law as some are calling for.

[Elok]

If heterosexual marriage were banned it would be an sign of the impending collapse of civilization as we know it, because marriage (or something very closely analogous) is essential to provide a stable environment for childrearing. Homosexual marriage bans would mean the employment of lawyers to circumvent most of the restrictions--they couldn't do anything about joint filing, the rest seems feasible enough--and some relocation, but probably not as much as we think. Gay marriage hasn't been legal in, say, Kentucky for very long at all. It would not be a pleasant situation by a long shot, but far from apocalyptic, especially compared to the utter misery Trump could plausibly inflict on other minorities. Even the end of abortion rights (which I'm totally fine with) would cause substantially more social disruption.

I very much doubt it would come to physically taking children away from homosexual parents, unless (again) it progressed to a true civil-war stage such that everybody would be screwed.

[DaShi]

If heterosexual marriage were banned it would be an sign of the impending collapse of civilization as we know it, because marriage (or something very closely analogous) is essential to provide a stable environment for childrearing.

Marriage does not necessarily equate to a stable environment. Only the financial benefits of marriage through taxes could benefit children. Otherwise, there is no difference between marriage and two people choosing to raise a child together. The primary impact of a heterosexual marriage ban would be a large number of people protesting discrimination, if non-heterosexuals were still allowed to marry.

But anyway, the sum of these kinds of arguments all boil down to: "If it doesn't affect me, it's not a problem."