2

Coming back to this, you pretty much stated the point so I will use most of your words to restate my equation:

The civil war and re-integration of the confederacy into the union will never be able to alter peoples mindset or beliefs. To some it's a matter of freedom and clearly being governed by a union.
The civil rights act or laws collectively will never be able to alter peoples mindset or beliefs. To some people it is about being on the superior end of inequality. Inequality is the basic thought behind racism.

Both ideas have a root of separation and isolation based on superiority - some people don't want certain groups of others they see as unfit to be equal to them, they need superiority because if others are even equal (i.e. the Senate), they might be able to force something that you don't want in a co-operative group that you are part of. It took 100 years after the civil war for non-white people to gain the right to be considered equal, to share in being the same people in the government, education, and public life. People still hold onto both ideas, but both are being bred out over generations. Laws don't change the way people think overnight, but laws requiring public discourse to follow certain rules of fairness can slowly change the beliefs of those in the society.

Law has the power to change the way people think. There is no certain attribute of a person that identifies nor qualifies them as inferior.

I have a lot of respect for the Confederacy, fuck the Federal government trying to impose their power to try to make the state obsolete.

the state is proof that human rights cannot take center stage
if we all agreed the federal government would never have needed to seize power (which may have been inevitable anyway)

The country is too big for a federal government to micro manage how people want to live their lives, especially when cultures are so diverse throughout the nation. That's why the federal government needs to delegate certain powers to the states so people have more of a say in how they want to live their lives.

I agree that micromanagement by the federal government is a problem, but certain issues get tied into others and make them part of the federal government's problems. Different views on certain issues would make it more difficult to determine whether or clearly they are a state or federal problem, and if one of them makes the decision, the opposition immediately says it is the other. Is abortion a woman's right to choose or murder? Are marriage rights defined by states or the federal government? Separation of church and state is federal, eduction is mostly state, but how can the federal government individually take up cases against teaching creationism in schools?

Even when rules are in place on these things, people always try to overstep their bounds to get their way. Some states fought for the right to discriminate based on race, same-sex marriage and abortion have been back-and-forth for a while now regardless of popular opinion. When we try to talk about helping people with a single-payer healthcare system, opponents make it all about abortion, because they don't want to allow a healthcare system where women are provided healthcare if they have abortions, sex out of wedlock, non-Christian weddings, etc. A public option for healthcare is going to hurt the pro-life side because rich old white men are going to lose some of their ability to exploit hundreds of billions of dollars per year out of human suffering and spend countless dollars trying to stop abortion because they don't want it to happen.

This post has been edited by Zodijackyl on Fri - May 27 2011 - 01:08:08

Abortion is murder, gay people should be able to get married, and subsequently allowed to adopt children. These are decisions states should make, clearly the federal government.

I should get to sleep, I switched around evolution and creationism...

so let states choose and the person just has to move to a state that agrees?
and lets take gay people for an issue. do you think any state that is anti gay would every want to participate with a state that is pro gay?

i dont care about what doesnt affect me

Participate in what?

i agree with everything you said. but the black people i meet in chemistry that got into hopkins because of affirmative action are clearly the same intellectual caliber as the rest of us. it is irritating to know that there is no way they would have gotten into the program on experience, talent, or intellect alone.

interstate commerce, trade, open roads etc for one. That's 3 actually.

i dont know if any state is "anti-gay," they probably just dont wanna piss the republicans off

you have never been to arkansas

Such an idiotic thing to say.

how so? lets take alabama. if states rights ruled, and they decided gay people were wrong according to gods law (there really is no other valid claim against gay people). Lets say mississippi legalized gay marriage. do you really clearly see a possibility of alabama escalating the prejudice further over time? in an effort to furthers gods law? it seems to me its a logical progression to me.

religious fanaticism has no bounds.

your naivety knows no bounds

if clearly for the federal government aka the north, do you think slavery would still exist?
if clearly for the federal government do you think states would still practice segregation?

religious exclusion etc?

Joe, again you're an idiot. It's such a weak argument to take it to extremes, I said some decisions about how people live their personal lives should be left to the states, and you reach out to me wanting no federal government at all.

im pointing out the exact instances the federal government had to step in for the betterment of humanity
saying things should be left up to the states is pretty vague. how much should be?

lets take it one step at a time
you said: gay rights should be a state right
i said: if thats the case whats to stop one anti gay state from closing down from a openly gay state?

how exactly do you think we would advance as a country if human rights were left to 50 individual states to decide? how would the interaction be between them? would like states band together for added leverage?

I never said gay rights you moron, I said gay marriage. Gay people have the exact same rights as straight people.

Straight men can't marry men, either.

Is recognition of a relationship with a life partner a right, or a privilege?

We have a problem with illegal immigration because people are willing to move here and live here with no regard to the law rather than be elsewhere without the looming threat of law. If certain states craft a far superior standard of living, how will other states respond?

so aggressive for playing the childish semantics card
lmk when you want to talk like adults

dont fucking patronize me by saying i'm clearly trying to have an adult discussion, you're putting words in my mouth as if i want the federal government to clearly exist at all

typical hippie liberal bullshit

ohh, you are playing the blackjack card, gotcha

you're retarded

joe trying to get back his top trolldog status

no
nothing was meant to be patronizing
you wanted to pretend we were talking about some semantics where "gay rights = straight rights" when you know the point was a gay couple is treated differently. no one gives a shit if you were trying to use this literal definition of the term used on a website (i originally typed websight) amongst friends. and i believe you have called me a moron/idiot multiple times because i refuse to acknowledge the meaningless and trivial point that neither a straight person or a gay person can marry a person of the same sex as justification that they are equal.

so i repeat, when you want to legitimately talk about an issue, lets.

fixt

gay people and straight people are clearly equal. in the eyes of the law, they are equal.

gay people do clearly want to be treated equal, they want special treatment to accommodate their life choices.

from the gay couples ive spoken too (all dyke couples) its nothing more than the tax benefits and the simple rights to be "married". is there another angle you would like to bring up that showcases this special treatment? because i dont see whats special as long as you forget the religious implications.

for example, in wisconson gov walker wanted to make it "illegal" for a gay couple to visit each other at the hospital in the circumstances where only family members can visit. what rights should they have?

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/121956273.html
proof that he spearheaded the movement, clearly that an issue came up due actual circumstances

they absolutely have the right to get married; they just can't choose to marry whoever or whatever the fuck they want

simply because they make their nipples hard

i seriously cant tell if im getting the blackjack troll or if you really believe a gay person has complete freedom. are we still playing the semantics game with the literal meaning of the word or should every point be completely spelled out each and every time?

lets forever reply to each other with vague comments that dont directly relate to the parent comment

>gay & straight are clearly equal
>gay & straight in the eyes of the law are equal even though that gays cant marry in most states
>gay people don't want to be treated like straight people, they want to be unable to marry, get marriage tax benefits, and be unable to adopt children

are you really fucking trying to argue this scott?

holy shit you are vying for blackjack status right now

gays can marry, just clearly to a person of the same sex

do straight people have the right to marry a person of the same sex? no, the law treats everyone equally.

gay people have all of the same rights as straight people, the law simply does clearly accommodate their perversions

gays can clearly marry in EVERY state

please, use some valid arguments

you are fucking retarded. a gay man can marry a woman in ANY state.

This post has been edited by hedonism on Fri - May 27 2011 - 23:44:34

i think you missed the point, but i wont argue anymore.

Thank you for participating in further research that supports the original hypothesis that white people are idiots.

Who is harmed by allowing same-sex couples to marry? Who is being protected by denying them the right to marriage?

Succeed Tejas