'Merica: YOU ARE SO GAY!

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well, comments about who gets the credit are verboten.

 

[Jokodo]

I never said any such thing. I'm saying it's not advisable to comment on other people being sensitive when you, yourself, are very whiny. So much drama from you.

The drama IMO came in the comments on my comment.

Because there's absolutely no drama in a polite request of the "start living normally for Chrissakes, like the rest of us" variety. I mean, we are talking about behaviour that forces you to switch TV channels. And they're doing it every fucking year. It's not like you're complaining about a minor nuisance, like having your own street blocked once or twice a month.

 

[Ford]

Well, comments about who gets the credit are verboten.

Was that you at Stonewall, then?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I never said any such thing. I'm saying it's not advisable to comment on other people being sensitive when you, yourself, are very whiny. So much drama from you.

The drama IMO came in the comments on my comment.

There is more drama in the thread than your drama. I just happen to find your drama the funniest largely because, as I have mentioned, you said "LMFAO. Forgot those folk are so sensitive." while you yourself are pretty darn sensitive, pumpkin.

 

[TSwizzle]

For fuck's sake, your comparison is grotesque and demeaning to the actual struggle of "niggers" and cannot be taken seriously by me. Jog on.

Yes, the comparison is grotesque. It's meant to be grotesque. This is called reductio ad absurdum. You made a strong pronouncement, calling the fact that SCOTUS declared popular decision made at the local levels unconstitutional "extraordinary" and incompatible with democratic principles. This claim, followed to its logical conclusion, leads to the grotesque (indeed) realisation that declaring lynchings unlawful is also extraordinary and undemocratic.

For fuck's sake give it a rest, this is so absurd it makes my eyes bleed just reading this shite. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you actually believe this codswallop.

 

[Jokodo]

Yes, the comparison is grotesque. It's meant to be grotesque. This is called reductio ad absurdum. You made a strong pronouncement, calling the fact that SCOTUS declared popular decision made at the local levels unconstitutional "extraordinary" and incompatible with democratic principles. This claim, followed to its logical conclusion, leads to the grotesque (indeed) realisation that declaring lynchings unlawful is also extraordinary and undemocratic.

For fuck's sake give it a rest, this is so absurd it makes my eyes bleed just reading this shite. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you actually believe this codswallop.

1. If you think I may actually believe it, kindly refrain from calling me a troll.
2. If you think what I'm saying is "codswallop", kindly explain why. Alternatively, I will assume that you don't have an argument and are unwilling to admit so (most likely even to yourself).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is quite extraordinary how quickly people will give up democracy in favor of whatever cause célèbre grabs their attention.

Would you say the same in the case of bans on interracial marriages? (see my reply to boneyard bills for more details)
In other words, would you say that people who hold that banning interracial marriages (but allowing same-race marriages) is unconstitutional in the US would be giving up democracy (how do you construe "democracy"; it's not majority rule, I suppose) in favor of some cause célèbre?

To be clear, I'm not talking about slavery, lynching, etc. I'm just talking about a ban on interracial marriages.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Well, comments about who gets the credit are verboten.

It was a battle fought over many decades by people who were coming from somewhat diverse political backgrounds. Credit would be difficult to attribute to any singular institution. Recognition of the Libertarian party's progressive stance on same-sex marriage is a nice thing, but was the Libertarian Party effectual on this issue? Was it significant? Or is it simply a matter of having been ethically consistent?

 

[RavenSky]

[
No one, including gays and liberals, should be celebrating the decision. Along with yesterday's decision on Obamacare, the Court has now established itself as some kind of College of Cardinals empowered to issued decrees on cosmic moral issues. The Obamacare case was straightforward. The legislation didn't authorize federal exchanges. Obama had no right to establish those exchanges without authorization from Congress.

This decision is even worse and has absolutely no basis in law or the constitution. If legal the sanctions that apply to marriage are not discriminatory, then there is no basis any decision based on the 14th amendment. If they are discriminatory, then gay marriage does not eliminate that inequality. It merely extends that inequality to gays who choose to marry. Any inequalities deriving from marriage laws still exist for people, gay or straight, who do not choose to get married. For the 14th amendment to apply, the decision would have to have eliminated marriage as a legally sanctioned institution altogether.

Neither of these decisions make any sense whatsoever from a legal or constitutional point of view. Apparently, they reflect the political opinions of the majority of the justices of the Court, but the Court is not there to enact their political opinions into law. Evidently, the wording of a law or of the constitution now means nothing at all. We are no longer governed by laws but simply by the arbitrary opinions of a few men.

That may seem comforting when those men are on your side, but what happens if people you don't like get control of this institution and start re-shaping America to their way of thinking? Unrestrained by the constitution, these men could, for example, establish Christianity as the state religion by simply arguing that the establishment clause doesn't mean what it says.

The rule of law is officially dead in America.

It is quite extraordinary how quickly people will give up democracy in favor of whatever cause célèbre grabs their attention.

It is quite extraordinary how quickly certain people will give up individual rights and freedoms (for other people) in favor of mob rule.

I consider it a very very good thing that we do not live under a pure "democracy" and instead under a system of governance that at least sometimes gives a nod to individual rights and freedoms.

 

[RavenSky]

Well, we did do all the ground-work, all the preparations, etc. And once the tide finally turned, it was nice of you to jump on the bandwagon and loudly tell everyone that you were actually steering it.

And Obama's going to get credit, considering that he did nothing to help but he was in the right place at the right time to sit back and watch it happen.

Yes yes yes, Jason. You, and you alone (because you are the only One True Libertarian) are 100% responsible for the USSC's magnificent rule yesterday. We shall all bow down in gratitude to your singular greatness.

We will also direct all of the Republican lynch mobs to you too

 

[laughing dog]

Of course, since Obama wasn't actually involved in any way, it isn't important who gets the credit / blame. Now if he actually had lifted a finger to help, I'm sure you'd say that credit / blame is important.

And, as usual, you would be wrong.

Why is it so important to you that Libertarians receive no credit for the work they did on this issue?

I have no idea what caused that straw man. You made the claim that "Well, we did do all the ground-work, all the preparations, etc. .." as if no one else, including the gay community were working towards this. Pointing out that claim is simply untrue does not deny any actual work or effort that Libertarians did. It is truly pathetic that a member of any group associated with this increasingly broad social movement would feel compelled to try to claim all the credit for all of the work done by thousands of well-meaning people across a wide spectrum of groups.

Nor, contrary to your assertions, do I see anyone claiming this SCOTUS decision is the result of Obama's or the Democratic party.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Keep denying it. It must choke you to know that Libertarians were ahead of you on this issue.

 

[TSwizzle]

It is quite extraordinary how quickly people will give up democracy in favor of whatever cause célèbre grabs their attention.

It is quite extraordinary how quickly certain people will give up individual rights and freedoms (for other people) in favor of mob rule.

I consider it a very very good thing that we do not live under a pure "democracy" and instead under a system of governance that at least sometimes gives a nod to individual rights and freedoms.

Of course you do. How's the view from that ivory tower ? Any oxygen up there ?

 

[laughing dog]

Keep denying it.

Denying what? As far as I can tell, you appear to believe that only "Libertarians" worked to promote and achieve gay marriage. Or that they were the first people to think of the idea. I find that incredibly difficult to believe that no gay people who were not also Libertarians came up with these ideas or worked to get them a reality. Perhaps you could document your claims.

It must choke you to know that Libertarians were ahead of you on this issue.

I'm sorry, but I could no more admit to such a fucking ridiculous notion than the existence of a flying spaghetti monster.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Keep denying it. It must choke you to know that Libertarians were ahead of you on this issue.

But what did they actually do?
You said 'laid the groundwork.' How did they accomplish that? What makes the libertarian involvement a contribution rather than just being on the right side of the issue far in advance?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think it was more that they were following Canada. Libertarians were, as always, completely irrelevant.

 

[Ford]

I think it was more that they were following Canada. Libertarians were, as always, completely irrelevant.

Who's to say that in addition to gay rights, libertarians didn't also lay the groundwork for Canada?


I mean, Obama was non-committal to the idea of Canada, then he eventually came around in full support of Canada. Libertarians once ran a candidate back in the 70s whose half brother was partly Canadian, so there...choke on that, Canucks!

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think it was more that they were following Canada. Libertarians were, as always, completely irrelevant.

Who's to say that in addition to gay rights, libertarians didn't also lay the groundwork for Canada?

That whole 'Don't ask, don't apologize' campaign, yeah.

 

[Archimedes]

This gay marriage does very little to curtail the power of the state or corporations like a TPP reversal. It is sort of bread and circuses. It is good and all, but it is a one and done.

That is without a doubt the dumbest most irrelevant objection to gay marriage I've yet to come across yet.

"Gay marriage laws don't fix the problems of state and corporate corruption!" I've heard it all now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unless you're like me and object to the notion of being proud of things that simply are and are not accomplishments.

Which is not what Pride does. In a time when people were made to feel ashamed of their sexual orientation, treated as moral deviants and perverts, a sense of 'pride' was antithetical to that shame. But it's not like people are saying "i managed to accomplish being gay, so give me a gold star!" A more common sentiment falls along the lines of, "In spite of historic condemnation of homosexuality, I reflect positively on who I am not in spite of being gay, but rather inclusive of that fact. I am no less dignified and no more degraded than any other person just for being gay."

That is not to suggest that every person's views on what LGBT pride means match what I said, but what the term 'gay pride' represents historically and presently cannot be reduced to a partial dictionary definition of the word 'pride'.

I understand this position, but to me that's not correctly described as "gay" pride.