A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Purple state, dude. Purple state. See previous disclaimer. I'm talking about traditional red states.
Montana GOP Candidate physically attacks reporter
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
In some respects, yes. We decided long ago a state cannot prevent a mixed race or mixed religion marriage. We did not make special exceptions that allowed someone to pretend those marriages were not real. We decided long ago one cannot have a different view on providing housing or jobs to racial minorities, we did not allow someone to claim their religion prohibits it. Everything about gays has been fought out with other groups and we determined secular rights superseded. That is all some of us are saying today on gay rights.
I suspect you are, like me, a straight white Christian male. I fully never expect to see discrimination, especially in red states.
There was a brouhaha this week when DeVos supported a Bloomington Christian school not allowing children of gays while accepting vouchers. I guarantee if someone opened a great school in an area and refused white Christians there would be a huge uproar from the right.
While I agree with Rock's description of HOAs - generally awful - I don't agree with your defense of him that those are government entities. They aren't. He probably doesn't require your help, eh?
He didn't say they were government entities. He simply used them as a fitting analogy. You're being overly anal and pedantic on this point.
That's a GOP jam, not a Dem jam.
Reports are that Quist actually did better in early voting than day-of, FWIW.
Dems are always the ones championing inclusion and expanded voting when there is an advantage to them - which they think is virtually all the time in early voting. Republicans generally win on election day and to the extent they didn't in Montana - date incomplete at this moment - it may well have been because of that event with the reporter. Keep your eyes open. The loudest advocates of early voting may be re-thinking about that about now. This race is hard to analyze - per Sean Trende today - since the candidates were quite imperfect. Hollywood and Silicone Valley threw millions at the Dem - glad its wasted. They've lost every one of these special elections and burned down millions of dollars. Its always a good thing when the left burns their cash.
I'm not saying Illinois is a red state.
I'm saying that, in the entire history of the US Senate, it took until 2016 for *any* state to elect an openly gay Senator (Lindsey Graham doesn't count)....and here you are chiding Red states for not electing gay people.
Along the same lines, most of the things you decried about Red states could also be said about Blue ones.
As for gay people and social acceptance, there's a group of about 8 or 10 very socially-connected gay men here in Evansville who are virtually ubiquitous on the social scene. One of the people they commonly socialize with is our (Republican) mayor and his wife. Everybody knows they're gay, and nobody cares.
They're not socially ostracized (quite the contrary) and I don't get the sense that they feel the least bit unwelcome. Roughly half of them have been to my house. I'll make a point to ask one of them next time I see any of them.
And we're about as Red as it gets -- north of the Ohio River, at least.
If you never see it, then how do you know it exists? Because others complain about it?
I wasn't saying "It never happens to me", Marvin. I was saying that....well, just read my story about the gay guys I referenced in my previous post. That's what I was getting at.
Not from me there wouldn't. I am a huge believer in freedom of association. And anybody who isn't -- whether they're white Christians or Black Muslims -- needs to consider what a unanimous court wrote in NAACP v. Alabama.
The thing is: appreciating the concept of freedom of association is a lot easier to do (for some, not for me -- I try my best to be consistent when it comes to principles....else they wouldn't be principles) when talking about minority groups than it is for, say, straight white Christians.
If an organization formed and they only wanted women, or black people, or Hindus, or gay people, I don't have the first problem with it....even if I'm among the excluded. Some see this as oppressive discrimination. I see it as absolutely integral to living in a free society. If Augusta National Golf Club only wants to have male members, they should be able to only have male members. If a black fraternity only wants to have black members, they should be able to only have black members.
These are not signs of a sick society. They're signs of a free one.
And yet those tracking hate crimes have a very small percentage against Trumpsters and a sharp rise against minorities, some mentioning Trump's name in doing so.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I'm very glad that you are accepting and apppreciate diversity. So why, on average, do red states not? Note for the study I'm using below, I'm using Republican as a proxy for red statism which I think is quite fair.
If opposition to gay marriage is fully based on religious beliefs (which it certainly is) - then you're not really proving me wrong with your anecdotal examples.
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
Not always. Are you familiar with Moose Lodge v. Irvis? The Moose Lodge in Harrisburg had refused to serve a black guest of a white member, and the guest sued. There were two issues:
1. Pennsylvania's liquor regulations required that private clubs follow the rules of their national charter, which in the case of Moose Lodge, included discrimination.
2. Pennsylvania's strict quota system created an artificial scarcity of liquor sales, which plaintiff argued meant that any discrimination by a holder of a liquor license was de facto state action.
Irvis won a technical victory on point 1, the court ruling that Pennsylvania could not require the Lodge to follow the discriminatory practices of the national charter, but lost on point 2 - the important one - meaning the Lodge could, at its own discretion, continue to discriminate.
Based on your theory of freedom of association, I'm guessing you would agree with the court's reasoning. However, a major issue that incredibly did not play a big role in the case (probably because it wasn't relevant to this particular plaintiff) is that at the time, in many towns like Harrisburg, political and social power resided in these private clubs. Councilmen and mayors were members. Patronage would be sealed there over dinner and drinks. Blacks were essentially excluded from a portion of public life because so much public business was conducted behind closed doors.
Luckily, the situation has changed, but when upholding the rights of the majority can be used to effectively limit the power of the minority, that's more the sign of a sick society than a free one.
Good Lord,I didn't know he said that.I guess all Americans should work until they die,because then it would be harder for young people to find a job.So does he believe we should all live like people did in The Old Testament era?I don't think many of us make it to 600.
Personally, I think one can oppose gay marriage without being a HATEFUL RETROGRADE HOMOPHOBIC BIGOT!!!
I've supported gay marriage for a long time -- before Barack Obama did, for sure...and maybe even before Dick Cheney. But I've had plenty of conversations with people who didn't about it. And I can appreciate where they were coming from, even if I ultimately disagreed.
My reasoning came down to whether or not I could genuinely say that I supported such values as equal protection of the law if I opposed it. I think Cheney put it pretty well: freedom means freedom for everybody. It really didn't have much to do with any particular moral consideration of homosexuality.
I think a lot of people are very selective in their application of tenets like equal protection. They work their way backwards -- they'll cite equal protection when it comports with their preferred view and conveniently forget it when it doesn't.
Well, I'm not in favor of anything that would lead to a de facto exclusion from full public equity.
But, despite being a reasonably well-off white guy, I've yet to receive my invitation to become a member of Augusta National...and I don't consider myself denied from "public life" (or however you'd term that) because of it.
The problem with what you were describing there, to me, wasn't as much the racial discrimination as the fact that public business was being conducted in such places. In that case, pretty much anybody who was shut out from that social setting would have a complaint to make -- very much including the black people who were excluded by rule.
So I'm not talking about a non-public place where the public's business is done.
I should add that I find racially-exclusive organizations (when and where they exist anymore) to be regrettable. I wouldn't belong to one. I find many kinds of discrimination to be regrettable. Just not illegal.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Well not really. Any argument you'd make to defend anti-gay marriagers as not being homophobic or relying on their dogma would be nothing but rationalizing behavior.
Again, tho, I think your diversity and basic human rights acknowledgement excludes you from those about which I'm speaking. Don't personalize my ire of red staters, after all I was one for the first 17 years of my life.
It's not illegal. SCOTUS said so. But you weren't talking about legality. You were drawing a dichotomy between "sick" and "free." And the word "free" implies something good, despite the fact that you agree such instances are at least "regrettable." My point is that when these private associations are de facto part of the local political machine, you can't dismiss it with, "Well, freedom." That's a symptom of a broken society.
No it wouldn't be rationalizing anything. It would be because I have a decent enough grasp on their general humanity to reject that sort of judgmentalism. I'm not saying this across-the-board -- of course a lot of SSM opponents are homophobes. I'm just saying it's not the case universally.
Pope Francis, while I certainly have my share of disagreements with him, doesn't strike me as being the least bit hateful...towards gay people or anybody else. And, of course, he opposes same-sex marriage.
If he can do that, why can't anybody else?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Because he's using dogma (which is completely unfounded in reality) to inform his political and social opinion on something. It's a horrible method. So, no, he can't do that and be a great guy.
Free most certainly does not imply something good (or bad).
People should be free to gamble their money. Gambling is, IMO, not a good thing.
People should be free to smoke cigarettes. Smoking cigarettes is, IMO, not a good thing.
There is no value judgment necessarily implied in freedom.
Not what that means, and you know it. The implication is not that anything you use your freedom for is good, but simply that it is good to have freedom. Your dichotomy between "sick" and "free" necessarily implies a value judgment, and it sounds silly for you to try to avoid that after the fact.
Let's make this very simple. Applied only to the example of the Harrisburg Moose Lodge I mentioned, do you stand by the statement that the legal right to discriminate is not a sign of a sick society, but of a free one? Or do you agree that, in at least this case, that blanket statement does not hold?
Well, I'm not even really saying anything about him being a great guy. I'm just saying that opposition to SSM isn't necessarily rooted in homophobia. Just because you think religious doctrine is "unfounded in reality" doesn't connect these dots.
Heck, even Andrew Sullivan has maintained as much. Back when he was blogging -- particularly about SSM -- he even opened up his blog to Maggie Gallagher, the director of the National Organization of Marriage. And he did it for precisely this reason.
Generally speaking, most mainstream political positions can be held by reasonable people. We really need to get away from this attitude that holding certain positions makes somebody a bad person.
It is good to have freedom.
I told you what my problem was with the Harrisburg case. Had it not been for the "public business" being conducted there, they should've been able to include and exclude whomever they wanted....and, yes, their ability to do that is part and parcel to a free society.
That contains no commentary on the rightness or wrongness of their admissions policy itself.
Freedom doesn't just mean having everything we're comfortable with, or that passes somebody's arbitrary moral test.
Is it a sign of a "sick society" that there are all-black fraternities or a women's group like the Junior League? Of course not. That's just free people freely associating with whomever they want.
That doesn't seem very hard to grasp -- or even very controversial. But for some reason, people get all in a twist whenever organizations are exclusively male, or Christian, or white. It's as if discrimination is OK -- but only if you're a female, or a racial/ethnic/religious minority, etc.
We need to be consistent about these sorts of things.
I don't actually agree with you here, but that's because I think "homophobia" is such a broad term, that it encompasses virtually every act or belief that sets apart the gay community as different, or seeks to treat them differently. Even well-intentioned opposition to full equal rights for gays rooted in profoundly deep religious conviction is still a type of homophobia.
Now, if you want to distinguish between types of homophobic beliefs based on whether or not they qualify as hatred or bigotry, I'm right there with you. I don't think it's wrong to describe the Catholic position on gays as homophobic, but I most certainly would not consider Francis - at least based on his publicly expressed sentiments - to be bigoted toward gays.
I hope in my description of this issue here, it's clear that I find this to be a purely semantic argument. I think you and Ranger are ultimately arguing past each other. I think your definition of homophobia is far too narrow (based on actual modern usage; I'm trying to be descriptive here, not prescriptive). I also, however, thing Ranger is wrong to conflate all forms of homophobia into a monolithic evil.
You're avoiding my question and changing the subject. I didn't say there was a problem with all-white, all-male, all-Christian organizations. I said in this case, there was a problem, and you seem to acknowledge that problem. And yet, you still can't bring yourself to answer the simply question I posed: do you agree that in this case - in which you admit to a (and I think correctly identify the) problem - your previous statement re: sick vs. free does not hold?
Didn't I already say that it didn't? Public business should be conducted in public -- and everybody should have equal right to air grievances, etc.
You're asking a question I answered in my first response to your post.
I'm sorry, but you did not. You identified the problem, but avoided answering my question directly, despite the fact that I asked it unambiguously.
Rereading my answer, I'd say I was pretty direct:
anybody who was shut out from that social setting would have a complaint to make -- very much including the black people who were excluded by rule.
Should I have put "valid" in front of "complaint"? I guess I should have.
But, again, the real problem there was the conducting of public business in a private place. That ought to be no more legal than if they were making public decisions in their own living room.
Taking that aspect of that case away, that and other private groups should be able to discriminate however they want.
No, you are answering a question I didn't ask. My post bringing up Moose Lodge was specifically in response to your dichotomy of "sick" vs. "free" society. I said - explicitly - that your statement does not work in a blanket fashion, because of cases like this. Now, do you or do you not agree with me? It's just a "Yes" or "No" answer, and you still can't give it.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I'd be curious to hear what forms of homophobia (which is discrimination) are not inherently evil?
And for the record I don't think catholic opposition to gays and SSM is homophobia - rather I think it's just ignorance.
You didn't use it in relation to a scenario. You used it in relation to a general concept, for which you offered numerous examples. I offered an example where I claim it does not work. And you still cannot answer the question.
Again, a semantic argument. I think the current usage of "homophobia" is broader than that. But if you are also agreeing that there is a difference between what you call "homophobia" and what you call "ignorance" - namely that said "ignorance" need not be "inherently evil," then we are on agreement on the key point.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
We do so agree. But it circles back to my larger point. It is not satisfactory or acceptable for a free society to just "accept" ignorance in the name of religion. Not when there are victims.
In a society that actually has an appropriate level of disestablishment and church/state separation, this shouldn't be a major issue. In those cases where private action negatively affects the ability of a disadvantaged group to be enjoy full membership in society - such as in public accommodations - anti-discrimination laws are appropriate. But in cases where someone's prejudice (or ignorance, or whatever) has no tangible effect on others, they can have at it, as far as I'm concerned.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Agreed. But the public and political opposition to gay marriage is another symptom of our de facto caliphates in some states wherein the idea of two men being married is met with disgust and vitriol, but a man who opposes Social Security benefits because Noah built an ark at the age of 600 is elected to Congress.
I'm with you that it's sad we put people like that in positions of power. There are very few intellectual positions stupider than the idea that a 2000-year-old book should be taken literally, even when it contradicts reason and common sense. That's a silly concept that should have been put to rest when it was thoroughly and competently refuted 1600 years ago by a certain cleric who is now known as St. Augustine.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Latest posts
-
-
-
What the hell are schools supposed to do to stop the war in Gaza
- Latest: JamieDimonsBalls
-
