I find it very disturbing

[Skylar]

And? Feel free to use that history to make a point.

And...my point was made...those who "struggle" don't like to think that some other group might in some way have "struggled" just as much as they did. If you'd been around during the Womens Movement in the late 70s, you'd have heard much of the same rhetoric about how "offensive" it is to compare the Noble Civil Rights movement to the Silly and Frivolous Women's Movement. SSDD.

The women's movement bares no comparisons with the struggles endured by black people in this country. Again, trivializing the experience of black people and other ethnic minorities.

No movement or struggle is exactly like any other. Discrimination is still discrimination and bigots are still bigots.

Exactly. Which is why when describing why discrimination against gays was unconstitutional in Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. the US.....the USSC cited 4 separate race based discrimination cases.

Discrimination is discrimination.

I certainly wouldn't argue the legality, just the relative importance.

In a discussion of legality, I'd say they are fine examples. And more important, relevant precedent.

 

[Liminal]

And...my point was made...those who "struggle" don't like to think that some other group might in some way have "struggled" just as much as they did. If you'd been around during the Womens Movement in the late 70s, you'd have heard much of the same rhetoric about how "offensive" it is to compare the Noble Civil Rights movement to the Silly and Frivolous Women's Movement. SSDD.

The women's movement bares no comparisons with the struggles endured by black people in this country. Again, trivializing the experience of black people and other ethnic minorities.

No movement or struggle is exactly like any other. Discrimination is still discrimination and bigots are still bigots.

Exactly. Which is why when describing why discrimination against gays was unconstitutional in Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. the US.....the USSC cited 4 separate race based discrimination cases.

Discrimination is discrimination.

I certainly wouldn't argue the legality, just the relative importance.

In a discussion of legality, I'd say they are fine examples. And more important, relevant precedent.

Uh huh, that's nice. I've decided the discussion has a wider scope than that.

 

[Skylar]

The women's movement bares no comparisons with the struggles endured by black people in this country. Again, trivializing the experience of black people and other ethnic minorities.

No movement or struggle is exactly like any other. Discrimination is still discrimination and bigots are still bigots.

Exactly. Which is why when describing why discrimination against gays was unconstitutional in Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. the US.....the USSC cited 4 separate race based discrimination cases.

Discrimination is discrimination.

I certainly wouldn't argue the legality, just the relative importance.

In a discussion of legality, I'd say they are fine examples. And more important, relevant precedent.

Uh huh, that's nice. I've decided the discussion has a wider scope than that.

I hear you. I've decided that discrimination is discrimination. And an example need not be explicitly and perfectly analogous to be relevant.

 

[Liminal]

No movement or struggle is exactly like any other. Discrimination is still discrimination and bigots are still bigots.

Exactly. Which is why when describing why discrimination against gays was unconstitutional in Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. the US.....the USSC cited 4 separate race based discrimination cases.

Discrimination is discrimination.

I certainly wouldn't argue the legality, just the relative importance.

In a discussion of legality, I'd say they are fine examples. And more important, relevant precedent.

Uh huh, that's nice. I've decided the discussion has a wider scope than that.

I hear you. I've decided that discrimination is discrimination. And an example need not be explicitly and perfectly analogous to be relevant.

Relative within it's own limited context, since it doesn't actually do anything for anyone else.

 

[Skylar]

Exactly. Which is why when describing why discrimination against gays was unconstitutional in Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. the US.....the USSC cited 4 separate race based discrimination cases.

Discrimination is discrimination.

I certainly wouldn't argue the legality, just the relative importance.

In a discussion of legality, I'd say they are fine examples. And more important, relevant precedent.

Uh huh, that's nice. I've decided the discussion has a wider scope than that.

I hear you. I've decided that discrimination is discrimination. And an example need not be explicitly and perfectly analogous to be relevant.

Relative within it's own limited context, since it doesn't actually do anything for anyone else.

All incidents of anything are relative within their own limited context. Its the nature of analogy or comparison. I've decided these are close enough to be relevant.

 

[Liminal]

I certainly wouldn't argue the legality, just the relative importance.

In a discussion of legality, I'd say they are fine examples. And more important, relevant precedent.

Uh huh, that's nice. I've decided the discussion has a wider scope than that.

I hear you. I've decided that discrimination is discrimination. And an example need not be explicitly and perfectly analogous to be relevant.

Relative within it's own limited context, since it doesn't actually do anything for anyone else.

All incidents of anything are relative within their own limited context. Its the nature of analogy or comparison. I've decided these are close enough to be relevant.

No, some laws are designed to benefit more than just one constituency.

 

[Seawytch]

In a discussion of legality, I'd say they are fine examples. And more important, relevant precedent.

Uh huh, that's nice. I've decided the discussion has a wider scope than that.

I hear you. I've decided that discrimination is discrimination. And an example need not be explicitly and perfectly analogous to be relevant.

Relative within it's own limited context, since it doesn't actually do anything for anyone else.

All incidents of anything are relative within their own limited context. Its the nature of analogy or comparison. I've decided these are close enough to be relevant.

No, some laws are designed to benefit more than just one constituency.

What laws aren't?

 

[bodecea]

And...my point was made...those who "struggle" don't like to think that some other group might in some way have "struggled" just as much as they did. If you'd been around during the Womens Movement in the late 70s, you'd have heard much of the same rhetoric about how "offensive" it is to compare the Noble Civil Rights movement to the Silly and Frivolous Women's Movement. SSDD.

The women's movement bares no comparisons with the struggles endured by black people in this country. Again, trivializing the experience of black people and other ethnic minorities.

See? There it is again. SSDD

No doubt you've put considerable time and effort into researching the historic problem of women being lynched, driven from their farms and communities, and being made scapegoats for all this county's problems. When will we deal with these historic injustices so the healing can begin?

Look....there it is again! Civil Rights is all about how much people suffered......apparently the more you suffer, the more civil rights you have....er...."earned".

Then stop the rhetorical piggyback ride.

Do you believe civil rights are only race based? Yes or No.
Do you believe civil rights are only important if a group has suffered an extreme amount of death and destruction? Yes or No.

 

[Londoner]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

Exactly. Gay marriage would have been unthinkable for my father's generation, but support for it has been slowly growing, which is why we see laws slowly changing.

There were plenty of people who resisted the emancipation of slaves and suffrage for women, not least because these changes upset our traditional social arrangements and beliefs.

Change is messy. Democracy is messy. But the world eventually changes, and now fewer people in the Deep South think slavery is a good thing. (Liberals believe that you can impose these changes from the top, but they sometimes fail to recognize how tightly people hang on to their beliefs)

I don't fault my conservative opponents for disagreeing with me on this issue. The role of conservatives is to resist change. I much prefer them resisting change than imposing - by force - their neoliberal economic model across the globe. How on earth did they think that Washington could save Iraq or any Muslim nation by dropping bombs and replacing their traditional lived-arrangements with our western version of freedom and "progress". Washington has enough problems saving this country; so why on earth do we think it has the budget and competence to save whole other continents and cultures?

Conservatives are at their best when they realize that cultures don't like forced or externally imposed change, regardless of how necessary some people view that change. I can't hope to impose my vision of gay marriage (live and let live) on conservatives. No amount of screaming or bomb throwing will change anything. Only time.

 

[Skylar]

I think what we have is just fine to resolve the issue. It is, in fact, being resolved. It just takes time.

Exactly. Gay marriage would have been unthinkable for my father's generation, but support for it has been slowly growing, which is why we see laws slowly changing.

There were plenty of people who resisted the emancipation of slaves and suffrage for women, not least because these changes upset our traditional social arrangements and beliefs.

Change is messy. Democracy is messy.

I don't fault my conservative opponents for disagreeing with me on this issue. The role of conservatives is to resist change. I much prefer them resisting change than imposing - by force - their neoliberal economic model across the globe. How on earth did they think that Washington could save Iraq or any Muslim nation by dropping bombs and replacing their traditional lived-arrangements with our western version of freedom and "progress". Washington has enough problems saving this country; so why on earth do we think it has the budget and competence to save whole other continents and cultures?

Conservatives are at their best when they realize that cultures don't like forced or externally imposed change, regardless of how necessary some people view that change. I can't hope to impose my vision of gay marriage (live and let live) on conservatives. No amount of screaming or bomb throwing will change anything. Only time.

Conservatives are at their best when they laud what works: family, integrity, fidelity, economic responsibility, hard work, personal responsibility.

They're not as effective when they get into foreign policy, start trying to shift the tax burden to the poor and middle class, and narrow the 'big tent' of the Big Tent Party to barely an umbrella.

 

[Skylar]

In a discussion of legality, I'd say they are fine examples. And more important, relevant precedent.

Uh huh, that's nice. I've decided the discussion has a wider scope than that.

I hear you. I've decided that discrimination is discrimination. And an example need not be explicitly and perfectly analogous to be relevant.

Relative within it's own limited context, since it doesn't actually do anything for anyone else.

All incidents of anything are relative within their own limited context. Its the nature of analogy or comparison. I've decided these are close enough to be relevant.

No, some laws are designed to benefit more than just one constituency.

Just as some amendments are made for more than just one constituency. In the case of the 14th, equal protection violations work just as well when busting interracial marriage bans as they do same sex marriage bans. Even if racial discrimination and anti-gay discrimination aren't exactly analogous.

They're close enough for both a legal and practical discussion.

 

[Michelle420]

I think short people should get protected status so the NBA can't discriminate against them.

I think the NBA and NFL should be forced to have rosters that mimic the racial mix of the US population. Whites, asians, and hispanics are being discriminated against while blacks are receiving huge paychecks.





IT JUST AIN'T FAIR------ DAMN IT !

The NBA and NFL are non-profit organizations. Maybe Edward Jones , Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs should be forced to have rosters to include more black people.

 

[koshergrl]

That's what many black civil rights supporters said about the women's rights struggle. SSDD

And? Feel free to use that history to make a point.

And...my point was made...those who "struggle" don't like to think that some other group might in some way have "struggled" just as much as they did. If you'd been around during the Womens Movement in the late 70s, you'd have heard much of the same rhetoric about how "offensive" it is to compare the Noble Civil Rights movement to the Silly and Frivolous Women's Movement. SSDD.

The women's movement bares no comparisons with the struggles endured by black people in this country. Again, trivializing the experience of black people and other ethnic minorities.

No movement or struggle is exactly like any other. Discrimination is still discrimination and bigots are still bigots.

I see, so every issue rises to the same level of importance, is that right? Particularly where human rights issues are concerned, correct? Then why so much focus on this issue and virtually none on basic human rights for all kinds of other people. Seems to me that people's opinions and behavior tend to reflect their own personal interests, rather than any commitment to basic principles of human rights.

No. Rather it seems to me that you have no understanding of history, if you don't realize the extent of human rights offenses that women were subjected to....but meh, progressives don't give a shit about the human rights of women anyway. You prove it every time you open your mouths or type a comment.

 

[Liminal]

Uh huh, that's nice. I've decided the discussion has a wider scope than that.

I hear you. I've decided that discrimination is discrimination. And an example need not be explicitly and perfectly analogous to be relevant.

Relative within it's own limited context, since it doesn't actually do anything for anyone else.

All incidents of anything are relative within their own limited context. Its the nature of analogy or comparison. I've decided these are close enough to be relevant.

No, some laws are designed to benefit more than just one constituency.

Just as some amendments are made for more than just one constituency. In the case of the 14th, equal protection violations work just as well when busting interracial marriage bans as they do same sex marriage bans. Even if racial discrimination and anti-gay discrimination aren't exactly analogous.

They're close enough for both a legal and practical discussion.

Democrats count their moral victories cheaply these days.

 

[Skylar]

I hear you. I've decided that discrimination is discrimination. And an example need not be explicitly and perfectly analogous to be relevant.

Relative within it's own limited context, since it doesn't actually do anything for anyone else.

All incidents of anything are relative within their own limited context. Its the nature of analogy or comparison. I've decided these are close enough to be relevant.

No, some laws are designed to benefit more than just one constituency.

Just as some amendments are made for more than just one constituency. In the case of the 14th, equal protection violations work just as well when busting interracial marriage bans as they do same sex marriage bans. Even if racial discrimination and anti-gay discrimination aren't exactly analogous.

They're close enough for both a legal and practical discussion.

Democrats count their moral victories cheaply these days.

Equal protection isn't cheap. Or quite counted until the USSC rules in June.

Though most indications look good!

 

[Iceweasel]

Equal protection isn't cheap. Or quite counted until the USSC rules in June.

It isn't equal if homosexuals can override someone's else's rights.

 

[Skylar]

Equal protection isn't cheap. Or quite counted until the USSC rules in June.

It isn't equal if homosexuals can override someone's else's rights.

Let 'someone' else take their case to court. The USSC isn't' addressing State PA laws in June. But State marriage laws.

 

[Seawytch]

Equal protection isn't cheap. Or quite counted until the USSC rules in June.

It isn't equal if homosexuals can override someone's else's rights.

What right of yours is nullified by my civil marriage?

 

[Iceweasel]

Equal protection isn't cheap. Or quite counted until the USSC rules in June.

It isn't equal if homosexuals can override someone's else's rights.

What right of yours is nullified by my civil marriage?

The rights of the people in a state to define marriage.

 

[mdk]

Equal protection isn't cheap. Or quite counted until the USSC rules in June.

It isn't equal if homosexuals can override someone's else's rights.

What right of yours is nullified by my civil marriage?

The rights of the people in a state to define marriage.

The people can still define marriage in their respective states but those laws are subject to certain constitutional guarantees.