US presidential election

[Gahars]

@[member='Sterling']

The problem with that, though, is that there will always be "more pressing" concerns to focus on. If we kept pushing off and delaying action by that justification (economic troubles here, war there, etc.), than nothing would ever be accomplished.

And, by that logic, why not just get it over with so that it's no longer distracting us from the rest of the problems we face?

 

[Sterling]

@[member='Sterling']

The problem with that, though, is that there will always be "more pressing" concerns to focus on. If we kept pushing off and delaying action by that justification (economic troubles here, war there, etc.), than nothing would ever be accomplished.

And, by that logic, why not just get it over with so that it's no longer distracting us from the rest of the problems we face?

Just put it on the back burner, and treat it like a background process on a computer. There will always be bigger problems, but most resources should be devoted to the bigger issues, and minimal ones to the smaller (but still important) ones. look, it'll get done eventually, but a forced transition is just uncomfortable, and no real good will come of it. Homosexuals will just have to bear and grin until it's solved, because a slow and precise change will be much better in the long run.

 

[Foxi4]

That's a dumb argument, when people are discriminated against the majority doesn't matter look at slavery, Jim Crow, anti-sodomy. None of these would have passed by people's vote and none of them did in the south, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia struck down their anti sodomy laws but only through their Supreme Court.

It's not dumb, it simply implies that certain cultural changes need to occour before a new law is made.

Slavery was abolishes, but racial segregation remained and blacks were still discriminated againts for years - in some places they still are discriminated againts.

Anti-Sodomy Laws were struck down, but a gay citizen is still considered a second-class citizen in some regions, so what changed, exactly?

Laws will be laws and people mostly abide them, but you can't convince a society to think differently because you think it's better for them. When you do something *againts* the society, the society will rebel and begin to discriminate againts given people or ideas even more strongly to show their disapproval. You want to give gays a slit of paper that says they are legally married while at the same time make their lives a nightmare.

Transformations like these take a long time and have to be executed step by step, not from day 1 to day 2.

 

[smile72]

That's a dumb argument, when people are discriminated against the majority doesn't matter look at slavery, Jim Crow, anti-sodomy. None of these would have passed by people's vote and none of them did in the south, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia struck down their anti sodomy laws but only through their Supreme Court.

It's not dumb, it simply implies that certain cultural changes need to occour before a new law is made.

Slavery was abolishes, but racial segregation remained and blacks were still discriminated againts for years - in some places they still are discriminated againts.

Anti-Sodomy Laws were struck down, but a gay citizen is still considered a second-class citizen in some regions, so what changed, exactly?

Laws will be laws and people mostly abide them, but you can't convince a society to think differently because you think it's better for them. When you do something *againts* the society, the society will rebel and begin to discriminate againts given people or ideas even more strongly to show their disapproval. You want to give gays a slit of paper that says they are legally married while at the same time make their lives a nightmare.

Transformations like these take a long time and have to be executed step by step, not from day 1 to day 2.

They don't go to jail or pay a fine for having sex, if they weren't struck down it would still be illegal in Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Oklahoma. Yeah, getting married, makes their life miserable. And guess what if we wait for every state to legalize gay marriage it will go into the next century or even further. You do not comprehend the American Bible Belt. Yet, you spout off this nonsense. Gays are still discriminated against in the South, should we have waited until 2050, when they were ready? Should the African Americans have waited until the South was ready?

 

[Foxi4]

They don't go to jail or pay a fine for having sex

 

[Gahars]

@[member='Sterling']

The problem with that, though, is that there will always be "more pressing" concerns to focus on. If we kept pushing off and delaying action by that justification (economic troubles here, war there, etc.), than nothing would ever be accomplished.

And, by that logic, why not just get it over with so that it's no longer distracting us from the rest of the problems we face?

Just put it on the back burner, and treat it like a background process on a computer. There will always be bigger problems, but most resources should be devoted to the bigger issues, and minimal ones to the smaller (but still important) ones. look, it'll get done eventually, but a forced transition is just uncomfortable, and no real good will come of it. Homosexuals will just have to bear and grin until it's solved, because a slow and precise change will be much better in the long run.

That analogy still doesn't quite work. If the smaller problem is constantly taking away precious time and resources from the bigger problems looming on the horizon, why not get it out of the way so it's no longer a distraction? That way the maximum amount of attention can be spent on the "most important" issues.

Again, you say, "it'll get done eventually," where does that end? Years? Decades? Longer? With each new problem that faces us, it will be pushed further and further into the back burner.

Sure, forced transitions are uncomfortable, but civil rights are never a matter of comfort. We're talking about traditions and customs built upon discrimination against a group of people; should we abide by institutional injustice because that's way it's always been done? Think of it as a band-aid on your knee; better to rip it off and get it over with than to slowly peel it off and prolong the pain.

Homosexuals will just have to bear and grin until it's solved

I think your choice of words there was a bit... awkward

 

[smile72]

They don't go to jail or pay a fine for having sex

 

[Foxi4]

Exactly, that was point, and when the changes was made the South resisted it took years for the South to get even slightly used to the changes. It also made the South change from voting Democrat to Republican. And state's rights should not matter in this case. Gay marriage is a civil right, it should not be determined by states whether they want to discriminate against one group. Yes, we stand under one flag and one constitution yet some people are still unequal, we need to fix that, and sometimes you have to tell people their vote doesn't matter when it harms someone else's rights. The South will get used to it or not, it doesn't matter. They can remain bitter over it, just like they did the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I and many others won't care. Fox "News" will but they are not really news.

Don't get me wrong on this one - I'm not saying that "gay marriage should not be allowed", I'm saying that the changes leading towards making it legal should be well thought-through and should not be made in an instant, as that never works and only leads to trouble. A series of changes is better than one big overhaul.

 

[smile72]

Exactly, that was point, and when the changes was made the South resisted it took years for the South to get even slightly used to the changes. It also made the South change from voting Democrat to Republican. And state's rights should not matter in this case. Gay marriage is a civil right, it should not be determined by states whether they want to discriminate against one group. Yes, we stand under one flag and one constitution yet some people are still unequal, we need to fix that, and sometimes you have to tell people their vote doesn't matter when it harms someone else's rights. The South will get used to it or not, it doesn't matter. They can remain bitter over it, just like they did the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I and many others won't care. Fox "News" will but they are not really news.

Don't get me wrong on this one - I'm not saying that "gay marriage should not be allowed", I'm saying that the changes leading towards making it legal should be well thought-through and should not be made in an instant, as that never works and only leads to trouble. A series of changes is better than one big overhaul.

It won't work either way the Bible Belt will be in an uproar that's what you don't understand. It could be made legal in 30 states, it will still anger the South. If it's legalized everywhere.

 

[Foxi4]

It won't work either way the Bible Belt will be in an uproar that's what you don't understand. It could be made legal in 30 states, it will still anger the South. If it's legalized everywhere.

If it's not State Law then all you really need is the majority of the states saying "Yes, let's do that" and the southern ones will have little to say. That said, give them the benefit of being eased into an idea they don't particularily enjoy rather then shoving it up their ass.

 

[smile72]

It won't work either way the Bible Belt will be in an uproar that's what you don't understand. It could be made legal in 30 states, it will still anger the South. If it's legalized everywhere.

If it's not State Law then all you really need is the majority of the states saying "Yes, let's do that" and the southern ones will have little to say. That said, give them the benefit of being eased into an idea they don't particularily enjoy rather then shoving it up their ass.

It's better to have it faster, it will be the same reaction either way.

 

[Gahars]

It won't work either way the Bible Belt will be in an uproar that's what you don't understand. It could be made legal in 30 states, it will still anger the South. If it's legalized everywhere.

If it's not State Law then all you really need is the majority of the states saying "Yes, let's do that" and the southern ones will have little to say. That said, give them the benefit of being eased into an idea they don't particularily enjoy rather then shoving it up their ass.

Not sure if intentional or (more) awkward wording.

 

[Foxi4]

It won't work either way the Bible Belt will be in an uproar that's what you don't understand. It could be made legal in 30 states, it will still anger the South. If it's legalized everywhere.

If it's not State Law then all you really need is the majority of the states saying "Yes, let's do that" and the southern ones will have little to say. That said, give them the benefit of being eased into an idea they don't particularily enjoy rather then shoving it up their ass.

Not sure if intentional or (more) awkward wording.

Unintentional, but I see how this could be funny...

That said, you are ommiting lesbians, how rude of you! Rubbing againts them should also be included.

 

[Phoenix Goddess]

Personally, I don't see why governments think they have a right to tell someone homosexuality is bad. I think we have more things to worry about than someone wanting to marry someone of the same gender. Who the fuck cares? Making it a big issue is the problem now when it shouldn't have been a problem in the first place. "Bearing and grinning" through discrimination is a stupid thing to say when people get killed, bullied, banned, and publicly hated for it. But I suppose African-Americans grinned through slavery, so I totally don't see the problem with homosexuals having to when they shouldn't have to in the first place

I guess the high percentage of obesity in America is a small problem too, right?

Long story short, there are better things to worry about. Trying to fix things that aren't broken is one of America's biggest problems, because we aren't focusing on things that should matter. We probably won't see a president who will focus on more important things any time soon, so I hope people vote for the person who they believe will help them and the rest of America the most.

 

[smile72]

Personally, I don't see why governments think they have a right to tell someone homosexuality is bad. I think we have more things to worry about than someone wanting to marry someone of the same gender. Who the fuck cares? Making it a big issue is the problem now when it shouldn't have been a problem in the first place. "Bearing and grinning" through discrimination is a stupid thing to say when people get killed, bullied, banned, and publicly hated for it. But I suppose African-Americans grinned through slavery, so I totally don't see the problem with homosexuals having to when they shouldn't have to in the first place

I guess the high percentage of obesity in America is a small problem too, right?

Long story short, there are better things to worry about. Trying to fix things that aren't broken is one of America's biggest problems, because we aren't focusing on things that should matter. We probably won't see a president who will focus on more important things any time soon, so I hope people vote for the person who they believe will help them and the rest of America the most.

You can't control someone in America, they can be fat if they want.

 

[Phoenix Goddess]

You can't control someone in America, they can be fat if they want.

Nor did I say that, did I?

 

[Foxi4]

You can't control someone in America, they can be fat if they want.

They can also be homophobes if they want to.

 

[smile72]

You can't control someone in America, they can be fat if they want.

Nor did I say that, did I?

You mentioned the high rate of obesity, you can't stop parents that want to buy their kids tons of fast food. Or food that's really high in fat. So we can't do much about obesity. We can tell people to eat healthier but it's their decision at the end of the day.

---

 

[Foxi4]

You mentioned the high rate of obesity, you can't stop parents that want to buy their kids tons of fast food. Or food that's really high in fat. So we can't do much about obesity. We can tell people to eat healthier but it's their decision at the end of the day.

They can be a homophobe, they could also be a racist, or a pedophile, you can't control people. It's their life, they can do what they want with it. Until it violates someone else's rights.

Alright then, let's assume that the child is a victim here - the parents feed their kids with junk which will inevitably lead to future obesity and thus be harmful to their health. Not once and not twice have I heard of people who sued their parents for feeding them junk food when they were little and wanted the parents to pay their medical bills now that they've grown up. It wasn't their choice to be fat - it was the parents who were neglectful and did not think through their diet. Don't those children deserve protection from unreasonable diets?

Afterall, it is their civil right to be in good health.

 

[smile72]

You mentioned the high rate of obesity, you can't stop parents that want to buy their kids tons of fast food. Or food that's really high in fat. So we can't do much about obesity. We can tell people to eat healthier but it's their decision at the end of the day.

They can be a homophobe, they could also be a racist, or a pedophile, you can't control people. It's their life, they can do what they want with it. Until it violates someone else's rights.

Alright then, let's assume that the child is a victim here - the parents feed their kids with junk which will inevitably lead to future obesity and thus be harmful to their health. Not once and not twice have I heard of people who sued their parents for feeding them junk food when they were little and wanted the parents to pay their medical bills now that they've grown up. It wasn't their choice to be fat - it was the parents who were neglectful and did not think through their diet. Don't those children deserve protection from unreasonable diets?