posted
I understand your reasoning for calling him that. But it's still name calling. It would have been MUCH more appropriate for you to point out how he had practiced what he was preaching against than just attaching the label.
See the response from Farmgirl. Her post was much more effective IMHO because it SHOWED instead of TOLD.
That's the screenwriter popping out in me. Sorry.
Don't tell me what he is, show me what he is.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My identity has already been established. But you're welcome to invent Conspiracy Theories if you so desire.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hadn't read that thread, but now that I see what he is saying there, then accusing others of, it doesn't bode well for him in that instance.
If you could have put that in the original thread, we all could have benefitted.
I'm not attacking you. Please don't think that. Just that name calling with no explanation of fellow posters doesn't bode well.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I really wish I could backtrack and find that thread where you said fundamentalist Christians are the worst thing to happen to America (or something similar."
You won't find it. What I said was that fundamentalist Christianity is the greatest danger facing America at the moment.
I would argue that this is a significantly different statement than "fundamentalist Christians are the worst thing to happen to America," and VERY different from a line like "most Democrats are traitors."
quote: In previous threads he made the statement that all Republicans/conservatives/people who vote for Bush are hateful bigots who want to roast homosexuals over an open fire
You, I'm afraid, are lying. Find this statement and I will gladly pay you a hundred dollars, cash on the nose. Otherwise, I expect an apology. My Log Cabin post says nothing of the kind, and your distortions are nothing if not purely ignorant and malicious.
What I said -- and, heck, I'll be charitable; what I implied -- is that there is a movement out there behind the institution of an amendment to the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage that will, quite bluntly, help to make homosexuals feel hated and despised on a national level. While this is probably something you consider an exaggeration or distortion, it's not even close to what you say I said.
posted
Yep. I'm associated with good America, while people who disagree with me are associated with evil America. But look up the old thread if you want to have that conversation. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*grin* Like I said, look up the old thread. You will find all your answers there, grasshopper.
Edit: But I'll help out here, just in case. The Search function can be batty sometimes. Good and Evil are ethical/moral constructs, but have little to nothing to do with religion. Additionally, the Amish are fundamentalist but not fanatic, and -- as the conversation on that thread evolved -- we decided that fanaticism rather than fundamentalism was in fact the greater danger. You'll notice that the fundamentalists don't ever mention the revision, probably because they're just horrified at the thought that someone might have considered them dangerous. *laugh*
posted
Which thread are you referring to? The one to which I'm referring is NOT the one to which NFL linked.
In fact, it's highly unfair of me to expect you to EVER find the thread I'm talking about, I realize, because it started out as a bizarre lamentation over Colin Powell before turning into a conversation about the nature of fanaticism. Here's the thread: http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/forum/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=027055;p=1
It starts being about what it winds up being about (*grin*) most of the way down the first page.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wanted to add that TomDavidson is an awesome guy, who states a lot of the things I want to say better then I could. Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So the hype about voiting for pro-choice politicians actuallty contributing to abortions seems reasonable under that theory."
Does the Democratic Party have "increase abortions" somewhere in its platform? The Republican Party DOES have "no gay marriage" in its platform.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I'd like to see that line in their platform, actually - could you point to a reference?
There's been a lot of biased paraphrasing in this thread, and such slanted summaries really undercut the rest of their arguments. Direct quotes with referenced sources work so much better.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Democratic platform does not respect the rights of unborn children.
Teh Republican platform does not respect the rights of homosexuals.
Both phrase it differently, of course.
The point is that if I am responsible for anti-homosexual bigotry for supporting Bush, then voters who support Kerrey are responsible for the abortions that occur because of the Democrats' refusal to protect the rights of the unborn.
Of course the actual truth is much more complicated, but I'm not the one who started flinging the accusations around.
quote:Dag, I'd like to see that line in their platform, actually - could you point to a reference?
The Democratic platform upholds the right of a woman to kill her unborn child. Makes it pretty clearcut that it therefore denies the rights of those children to live.
quote:The point is that if I am responsible for anti-homosexual bigotry for supporting Bush, then voters who support Kerrey are responsible for the abortions that occur because of the Democrats' refusal to protect the rights of the unborn.
I'm pro choice, so I am responsible for the lives lost during legal abortions. There just isn't a way around that.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me make the analogy more precise - what about pro-life people supporting Kerrey? What is their repsonsibility if the justices he appoints if he's elected cement Roe for another generation?
posted
I think they are still responsible. Clearly, these pro life voters decided that there are other issues more important than abortion. There's nothing wrong with that. But their responsibility for the unborn children killed under legalized abortion is no less than that of a pro choice person who voted for Kerry.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with your prediction Dag. This whole amendment debate is just a wedge issue Bush is using to divert some of the swing voters' attention away from Iraq and the economy. I'm not saying Bush isn't sincere about being against gay marriages, but I do not believe he stays up all night thinking about how he can deprive gay people their constitutional rights.
posted
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" isn't in the Constitution.
And Kwea, the fact is you don't respect the rights of a 2-month old fetus enough to make it illegal for someone to kill him, even if you respect those rights enough not to do it yourself.
That might be because you don't recognize those rights, it might be because you consider those rights subordinate to the mother's rights, but it's clear you limit them to such a degree that they provide no real legal protection.
It's a simple fact that as of right now, the Constitution does not protect the rights of homosexuals to marry, just as it's a fact that it does not protect the rights of a fetus to be free from being killed.
Thanks Kwea. I'm not picking on you or anything, but any kind of baby imagery gives me the willies. The dancing baby in Alley McBeal used to give me nightmares.
quote: if I am responsible for anti-homosexual bigotry for supporting Bush
I didn't say that...I just said that there is some responsibility that must be shared in both cases, IMO.
I didn't say you were a bigot for supporting Bush...but I believe his agenda is bigoted toward them, and you are voting to put him in place to fight for such bigotry.
How would you NOT be partially responsible?
Well, you could lobby against those particular views...as you have here, for instance.
You could try to moderate such views within the party.
And you could be clear that you don't support that sort of treatment of any human being, gay or not.
Sort of sounds like what you are already doing, Dag.
But if the legislation passes barring these rights....you would be responsible, just for supporting him.
Not as responsible as he himself would be, but all his supporters would share in that.
posted
Kwea, this whole line of reasoning was not directed at you, even though your post inspired it.
There was a discussion on the board a while back where it was debated if voting for pro-choice candidates created some responsibility for abortions in America, and this was vehemently denied.
I just wanted to retouch on this subject when I was given such a good opening.
And your explanation is a pretty good example of why I said it's complicated.
posted
I disagree, Dag...and the courts will decide if I am right or wrong on that point. That phrase has been interpeted many different ways as times change.
PS..the preamble is part of the Constitution, isn't it? And the courts have used it in redefining laws...at least I think so....
All means all.
Dag, are you saying that homosexuals aren't human, and therefore aren't protected? ( I know your aren't, but)
Because that is why that protection isn't gaurenteed for fetuses....they aren't legally people. Right or wrong, that is a fact, for here and now.
There is doubt among people if they are or aren't...but homosexuals are, without a doubt.
I realize you have no doubt....but that isn't enough to make me force women to carry unwanted babies to term.
posted
I understand the difference. But there's a sizable contingent who hold to the "Of course we can't let homosexuals get married to each other - a marriage is between a man and a woman." And according to a lot of history in Anglo-American jurisprudence, they're right.
Two different groups of advocates want to secure previously unrecognized rights for two different groups of people (or beings, if you prefer).
Dagonee P.S., It's worth pointing out again that Dred Scott was one of the first decisions to use the Bill of Rights to strike down a federal law. And it relied on language from the Declaration of Independence to deny that blacks were citizens with any civil rights.
Edit:
quote:Dag, are you saying that homosexuals aren't human, and therefore aren't protected?
No, I'm saying there's no recognized right for two people of the same sex to get married. Homosexuals share in pretty much every other right guaranteed by the Constitution - due process, equal protection (minus marriage and adoption and a few other things), free speech, free exercise of religion, all the criminal rights.
posted
Well, I'm a little late with this reply, because I usually don't post at night when things get really active here....
But I just want to say (mainly for Chad's benefit, being new) that TomDavidson and I are really friends IRL (at least I think we are). He is just much better at this online debate thing than me, so at times he gets under my skin with issues -- and so far I haven't even been able to prick his thick skin...
posted
Dag. Not trying to pick on you but something you said hit me (so to speak):
quote:No, I'm saying there's no recognized right for two people of the same sex to get married. Homosexuals share in pretty much every other right guaranteed by the Constitution - due process, equal protection (minus marriage and adoption and a few other things), free speech, free exercise of religion, all the criminal rights.
There are no recognized Constitutional Rights for Heteros to get married either, but they do. You also stated that Gays share in pretty much every other Right guaranteed by the Constitution. With exceptions. Here, IMO, is where you trip up. Either Gay citizens are CITIZENS, and should be afforded EVERY Right of citizens, or they aren't. There is no gray area here. Its an all or nothing situation because they have not, just by the virtue of being Gay, felons; who have, as a consequence of their actions, had some of their rights stripped from them. It wasn't until Lawrence v Texas was overturned that they were afforded some of the criminal rights afforded to others. It also wasn't until Lawerence v Texas was overturned they were afforded equal protection or due process. And they are STILL denied equal protection under the marriage issue. They ARE denied due process under he adoption issue (Kansas I think, though it might be Missouri, will NOT recognize adoptions by Gays who move there from another state).
All things being equal, Gays are NOT being traeted equally.
Again, not attacking or trying to pick a fight. I admire you a great deal. You have an eloquence I envy and can say things that I am thinking much better than myself.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Woa! I'm not saying they are being treated equally. I'm saying, under current constitutional jurisprudence, they are not equal with respect to marriage and adoption, and they should be.
There is a constitutional right for heterosexuals to get married without undue state interference - there's a line of cases acknowledging this as a right and requiring some level of judicial scrutiny on regulations of it. Under the current court, I'd be very surprised if they extended this to homosexuals - O'Connor's concurrance in Lawrence gives a decent indication that she likely won't support a constitutional right to gay marriage.
Remember, Lawrence did not turn on the principle that gays were being denied equal protection. This was the big surprise - the Court could have relied on the discriminatory nature of the law to reach its decision. The plurality opinion established the substantive due process right for consenting adults in private to carry on as they wish sexually, barring adultery being an issue. So it didn't establish a right for homosexuals, it established a right for everyone. Small difference, but critical in understanding the state of the Court on this issue.
All the rights you listed as homosexuals not having were (I believe) covered in the portion of my post you quoted.
quote: Either Gay citizens are CITIZENS, and should be afforded EVERY Right of citizens, or they aren't. There is no gray area here.
Who says Gay people can't marry anyone of the opposite sex?
You tripped up because Heterosexual people can't marry people of the same sex just the same as Homosexual people can't marry people of the same sex.
The rights ARE equal as they stand. Heterosexual people have the right to marry or not a person of the opposite sex. Homosexual people have the right to marry or not a person of the opposite sex.
Please show me where a Heterosexual person who decides to marry a person of the opposite sex and a Homosexual person who decides to marry a person of the opposite sex are discriminated against?
The problem however is that the majority of Homosexual People advocate CHANGING the laws to allow marriages to be extended to people who wish to marry someone of the SAME SEX.
As individuals, the law provides the same rights to a Homosexual person as it does a Heterosexual.
It's when it comes to CHOICE OF PARTNER (which is NOT in any way forced on anyone) that their choice is not recognized by the laws. And it's not just Homosexual people who want their couplings recognized who are denied. There is a MIRIAD of couplings by choice which are not recognized as marriage.
But anyone who claims that a Heterosexual Person and a Homosexual person do not have the same rights when it comes to marriage are factually incorrect IMHO.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean a Midnight press conference after the RNC?
Why? I asked myself.
The idea, I think, was to steal (or at least mute) the Republicans' thunder on the next day's morning news shows. This plan was hurt by the fact that the whole crisis with the Russian school children having been taken hostage blew up that night, and drew the bulk of the media's attention the next morning (drew it away from both the Republicans and the Democrats, I should add).
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But anyone who claims that a Heterosexual Person and a Homosexual person do not have the same rights when it comes to marriage are factually incorrect IMHO.
In much the same way that anyone who claims that a homeless person and a wealthy person do not have the same rights when it comes to sleeping on a park bench is factually incorrect, I think.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's the screenwriter popping out in me. Sorry
So that's what you do, CStroman, -- screenwrite?
I wondered what you did all day that allows you to spend so much time on Hatrack, as I do. (I work in technical support, so I have to sit in front of this monitor all day long...)
posted
Okay -- not to sidetrack -- but since Tom said I couldn't find where he said what I claimed he said, I decided to use search to the best of my ability to decide the actual original wording.
Here are some of the things I felt like point to him brushing all Christians with the same stroke:
quote: When you can show me a substantial number of fundamentalists agreeing that the behavior Christian god has been regrettable and many of His interventions should probably have been handled differently, I'll agree that they are not willing enablers of that evil. from this thread, page 2
and
quote:Oil companies and fundamentalist Christians, both of whom have done a lot more damage to America than terrorists ever could. (from the same thread, page 1) (but I found it second)
So, to me, basically Tom has classified me as 1) supporting evil (by his classification of such) if I believe in my God, and 2) on the same level as a terrorist in damage to America. He's knows I'm a Christian, yet I don't see any "some" or "a few" or other such disclaimer.
This was just for the record. I still like you, TomD, whatever you think of me.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
but at the same time. ![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
(at least I think we are). He is just much better at this online debate thing than me, so at times he gets under my skin with issues -- and so far I haven't even been able to prick his thick skin...
