Bigotry

Once again, the only thing that makes it to my blog are discussions on Facebook. This one talks about supporting gay marriage and how it relates to the Preamble of the Constitution. LK starts off the convo, actually with a tweet. I'm TS.

What I just don't get is how people who are against allowing gay marriage don't see how they're being bigots. They have no explanation for not wanting it other than they think it's "not right", but would be damned if someone took their rights away. Apparently it's "OK" if the right doesn't already exist. Here it is:

LK Retweet @GuyEndoreKaiser: “I hate when the government tells me what to do… I just want it to tell everyone else what to do.” –rich white men

DS ‎"Bettering myself is too hard, so I'mma just stay on welfare and line up for some free Obama money. Don't know where it comes from, don't care either, it's free Obama money and that's why I love him" -lazy black people

DS ‎"I hate that I can't get what I want for free, so I'll just ask the government to force other people to fund what I want." -selfish Fluke types

LK Is your tv permanently stuck on Fox News? Because I'm pretty sure that was running on the ticker this morning.

DS ‎"I can't believe a fair and open election decided against my personal interests, so I'll just bitch until some court overturns a democratic vote." -whiny lesbian couples

LK Okay DS, let's get some things straight. Everyone on welfare is not on welfare because they are lazy. Ethics are not based on economic situation (thanks TS). Second, by saying things like "anyone can work hard and get a job" you are implying that everyone can work hard and get a job, and it is just downright stupid to believe that's true. And if you don't think that the "personal interests" of gays and lesbians are valid human concerns, then I don't know how you can call yourself an American. Fair and open elections also came up with segregation of blacks and whites in schools, and if you ask me I think it's a damn good thing that someone "whined" enough until that was overturned.

GM Haha I love you LK. I agree with you on each and every point you made from 1st hand xperience.

DS I don't actually watch the news. I get all my info from my phone, and my three news apps are HuffingtonPost, BBC, and China Daily. I am offended that you would stereotype me.

You're right; ethics are not based on economic situation. I'm completely certain that I did not say "anyone can work hard and get a job" (thanks for putting words in my mouth). Technically, on that point, you are wrong. Anyone CAN work hard and anyone CAN get a job because our society allows people the opportunity to apply as much elbow grease as they want to any employment they have.

Personal interests of gays and lesbians are not "human" concerns because they have nothing to do with fundamental aspects of our species; one's personal interests are just that- a personal interest. To say that only those who sympathize with homosexuals are Americans is indeed stupid.

I have no idea what "fair and open elections" made blacks and whites segregated in schools (references do help one's case from time to time), but segregation was forcibly overturned because blacks had protection guaranteed by the Constitution and the United States Code. Gay marriage "rights" do not.

I have no personal interest or religious persuasion for either side in that argument. I see the issues as A and B. The Golden State put the issue to the people in a fair and democratic election and a majority chose A; in response, those who wanted B bitched and moaned and cried foul because they didn't get what they wanted. Had the people chosen B, and those who wanted A done the same, I would bet an entire year's pay the Gay community would say something to the effect of "We won, you lost, shut up and sit down." What I dislike about the issue is hypocrisy, and no one should ever stand for that.

DS I support A because A was chosen by the people. If the people had chosen B I would support that instead. To whine to the courts when the people don't democratically decide what you want is what's un-American here.

GM ‎^majority shouldn't be alowed to vote for the minority on civil rights ... that's my main issue with the whole fiasco tha was Prop8 .... it's hard for many Americans (and people in general) to sympathize and understand with others on issues that they don't personally deal with, which is why it's totally understandable that marraig equality was shut down/delayed.

TS ‎"I am unaware of my white male privilege" - DS

TS ‎"The people chose Gore so I took it to the Supreme Court" - G W Bush

LK So you're saying you'll support whatever the majority vote is, regardless of its moral or ethic substance? What does that say about you as a person? The majority also used to believe that women shouldn't vote. Good thing someone out there didn't just take that to be gospel truth since it's what the majority decided.

DS Moral and ethical substance are relative. When someone does not have a personal stake in an issue, the wisest course of action to think logically. Because we don't have an authoritarian government to tell us what to do, the most ethical way to decide an issue is to let the people vote. The result of that vote should be upheld until such a time that the majority of the people believe differently enough to change the statute.

To claim the ethical high ground and cry tyrrany of the majority seems to be a tactic of the bitter (and, increasingly, the Left). I can only imagine what you'd say if gay marriage had been legalized and the fundamentalist Christian right claimed that the majority voted enact an unethical law.

Again, hypocrisy...

LK So... Just to recap, you agree that it's fine to deny people rights based on their sexual orientation just because you are not personally affected, and because that's what everyone else is doing.

DS You do the same thing. And essentially, yes, I do; and I do so because while I believe gay marriage to be illogical I have no true personal stake in the issue. As such, it is more ethical for me to uphold the tennet of democracy over the "morality" of one side's argument...ESPECIALLY since both sides claim to be morally correct.

DS2 ‎"I'm too drunk to taste this chicken." - Col Sanders

TS Well, one side is denying basic rights for other people's pursuit of happiness based on their religious beliefs. The other side would likely stimulate the economy by leaps and bounds to express their happiness (think of all the money being thrown around for weddings all at once). But I think the real issue is that insurance companies have no desire to have that many more dependents.

DS ‎...and therein lies your fundamental fallacy: we have the right to the PURSUIT of happines, not the right of a GUARANTEE to happiness. Because the government is not denying gay groups the ability to petition, lobby, or vote the right to pursuit is indeed being exercised and upheld. A right to play the game is not a right to win the game.

Gay weddings would not stimulate an economy any more than the stimulus bill did. The insurance company argument may or may not be accurate, but I highly doubt that's the reason why people continue to vote no.

TS Pursuit at what stage? That's rather ambiguous and differs per your and my perspective. Pursuit in the sense of striving for equality, or pursuit starting from a baseline of that equality having already been established -- "All men [people] are created equal"....? That's like trying to play a game of chess without all the pieces. "Oh Billy, don't worry, you don't need a queen."

But where does propaganda money come from? Do you really think that the religious industry isn't influenced by those with money? Religion is brainwashing at its finest.

DS There isn't a "level" in the pursuit clause. Life, liberty, and the pursuit. Life, in that the gov't can't kill you without due process. Liberty in that the gov't can't take your freedom without due process. Pursuit in that the gov't can't keep you from trying to achive a state that makes you happy. The created equal clause was a statment of political equality to counter the concept of unchecked power through kingship by divine right. It did not mean blacks and whites were equal under the law (for they clearly weren't when the document was signed). It did not mean that homosexuals are to be treated as equal candidates for their own brand of marriage. The phrase meant what it meant within the context of its time. To claim it means something to the contrary because we think differently today is dangerous.

The right to pursuit means you have to right to unfettered pursuit of what you want, it doesn't mean that everyone has the right to get what they want.

Propaganda money (on BOTH sides) comes from interested parties, and because such parties have a vested interest in the outcome of an issue they are exercising their right to pursuit by donating funds. Organized religion has been influenced (both positively and negatively, speaking relative to it's position) by outside money just like other groups.

TS ‎"There isn't a "level" in the pursuit clause."
According to you? A lack of definition doesn't mean that there isn't room for interpretation. Obviously that's the biggest problem with that document.

"Liberty in that the gov't can't take your freedom without due process."
What if those liberties aren't already afforded? This is apparently "the constitution according to DS". I'm glad your fundamental rights are not being infringed upon. Weren't we talking about hypocrisy earlier?

"Organized religion has been influenced (both positively and negatively, speaking relative to it's position) by outside money just like other groups."
Except they should have no say in the matter. Having exclusionary rights from paying any taxes they shouldn't be allowed to influence the vote. If they truly were a non-profit, not a capitalist venture disguised as one, I might think differently.

DS ‎"...and the pursuit of happiness." I honestly can't understand how you could think that to be an open ended, interperatable phrase. You have the right to pursue that which makes you happy. You do no have the right to have what makes you happy given to you, especially at any expense to others. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

The biggest threat to what the framers viewed as liberty during their era was unjustified imprisonment. Liberty to them meant freedom (as in not imprisoned), not the ability to do what you want. And no, this isn't the constitution according the me, it's the constitution according to several constitutional history classes. Your arguments lead me to believe that you've never had one.

Stating that organized religion has been influenced by outside money is a non-partisan fact. I'm amused that you're taking a simple statement and using it as a segue to an opinionated argument (even though I happen to agree with you).

However, as a counterpoint, the separation of church and state clause (as butchered and misinterpreted as it has become) would apply to organized religion, thereby making religious exception from taxes logical. As citizens of the United States members of organized religion have the right to pursue what they see as happiness by exercising fiscal power just like non-profit political organizations have the ability to exercise fiscal power.

TS ‎"You do no have the right to have what makes you happy given to you, especially at any expense to others."
EXPENSE OF OTHERS?! Who is hurting from straight bigots finding it "unsavory" for gay people to marry? I don't think that's at the expense of the bigots. Please explain yourself here.

I'm just wondering how you can't see your white male STRAIGHT privilege. Look at the rights you have. Look at the rights these people don't have. Did you fight for yours? Were they given to you just because of how you were born? Let me help you on that last question: Yes.

"I'm amused that you're taking a simple statement and using it as a segue to an opinionated argument"
Religion in this instance (where the money is coming from) is promoting hate, intolerance, and bigotry.

"However, as a counterpoint, the separation of church and state clause (as butchered and misinterpreted as it has become) would apply to organized religion, thereby making religious exception from taxes logical."
So it means that the government can't mess with the church but the church can influence the government? That is not "separation". We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

LK Ok, so say I'm gay. I want to get married, something which does not affect you as a straight person. My happiness does not impede your happiness. However, your decision to prevent me from marrying the person I love DOES impede my happiness. So, pursuing the thing that makes you happy (for whatever reason) does come at the expense of my happiness. This is not a question of "well more people voted this way so that means we all need to just be happy with it." If that were the case you wouldn't have a problem with anything Obama has done since he was elected by the majority.

DS ‎@Shinabarker:

The church is not influencing the government. The church is influencing the people, and the people are, in turn, influencing their constitution (assuming we are still using Prop 8 as a reference point). Now, if the church had the power to veto legislation outright then we would have an instance of religion influencing government, but we do not. And as we've seen in recent years the federal government has and is messing with organized religion. Tit for tat, I suppose some might say.

There is no limitation on either the church's or the government's or political organization's ability to persuade people.

My original statement, had you read it correctly (and it's becoming obvious that you are hard pressed to see a sentence free from your politically biased lense) is that organized religion *has* been influenced by outside funds in the past. It's just a statement of fact. There is no bent or slant to that statement. As for "religion promoting hate, intolerance, and bigotry" liberal organizations also promote hate for conservative values, intolerance for those who oppose them, and bigotry against traditionalists. Both sides use the same tactics. Why are you incensed at this?

Any pivileges I have were granted to me because the were the standing privileges based on the laws of the country. Don't like them? Change them legally. I dare not say change them legally AND fairly, because fairness is both relative and something I see the Left oft misconstruing.

Again, for what feels like the umpteenth time, the right to pursuit lets you pursue. If getting what makes you happy makes someone else happy you have no right to government intervention so that what you want is simply *given* to you in a way that is detrimental to others.

If the government should put the proverbial gun to the other side's head to give you what makes you happy then the government should be able to put the proverbial gun to YOUR head to give your opponents what makes them happy. That leaves us with a stalemate and right back where we started. The only way to settle such a dispute is to through the democratic process, and then to respect and enforce the will of the people. When the will of the people changes, change the law.

Congrats on your racist, heterophobic, bigoted arguments. I'm afraid I'll have to stop replying to your posts because any hope of a serious, levelheaded debate has devolved to one of one sided arguments countered by volleys of emotional outbursts and name calling. I'd chuckle at how stereotypically liberal this is, but it's honestly not funny to me any more.

DS ‎@LK:
The only thing I have problems with (with respect to Obama) are the actions he's taken that are unconstitutional. I have logical cause to be opposed to those actions because I have a legal starting point on which to base my decisions. The Prop 8 issue was trying to creat a legal starting point because there isn't one.

I don't have a problem with states that do allow gay marriage after legalizing legislation being passed by either the people or their duly elected representatives...because that is the perogative of the people.

Because I don't care to have a dog in the fight I have to look at the big picture. This picture has three sides: A, B, and The Process. I don't care to support A for the reasons A believes A is right; the same can be said for B. Therefore, it is both logical and ethical for me to support The Process because The Process is fundamentally American. As an extension of said process, I am thereby required to support the outcome, and that's what I'm doing.

Just because I don't agree with the opposition doesn't mean i'm reasonably or morally obligated to support you.

TS ‎"And as we've seen in recent years the federal government has and is messing with organized religion."
Where? And I'd also like to add that these megachurches use federal dollars to have police provide for parking management. How is this a separation? The church doesn't contribute to this at all.

"organized religion *has* been influenced by outside funds in the past."
Present and future? Why is it that religious affiliation is such a big issue within politics? So people who are blind to making their own decisions know who to follow. "He's such a good, Christian fellow."

"Don't like them? Change them legally. I dare not say change them legally AND fairly, because fairness is both relative and something I see the Left oft misconstruing."
People are trying to change them, but it's assholes like you who think they know better than the people who are being affected by your prejudice.

"Any privileges I have were granted to me because the were the standing privileges"
To quote you earlier "There isn't a 'level' in the pursuit clause." Obviously, there is. You can be happy with what you have, but you feel like it makes you happier (I'm assuming, because you won't answer this) to have other people not be afforded the same rights. And it is a right. What else would you call it, a privilege? You didn't earn it.

The issue, it seems, is that some majorities feel a certain way at the expense of others. If they bothered to think of how they might feel in that situation, then maybe they wouldn't be such assholes about it.

Yes. I'm heterophobic. I was the one stating that heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married... Your rhetoric is the hate-filled one.

TS I see what's going on here. You think that the opposite of your homophobia is heterophobia. It doesn't work that way, dude.

LK I think it's hilarious that I was just called a racist bigot by an angry conservative who is opposed to gays having the right to marry like the rest of us.

TS And I appreciate that you likely purposefully misspelled my name. But I suppose I don't really have to mess with DS, do I? [DS's last name is a reference someone might make if you smelled something foul.]