I don’t even know who that is. I can’t judge very well from that one sentence summary of his position. But being the victims does mean that homosexuals have a much more reasonable set of fears. Certainly in the wrong however.
And you misattributed that quote.
About a decade ago, Andrew Sullivan the blogger of the Daily Dish, the most important of all the Gay Republican bloggers, called for SSM. He was shouted down by those who said he was attacking the Gay Lifestyle. Almost as if some Gay people had a natural conservatism about proposals to change their social institutions.
If a religious person opposed SSM he is evil, but if a Gay person does so he is … what exactly?
Wrong? There IS no good reason to oppose SSM; something demonstrated every time someone is challenged to produce such a reason and fails.
An idiot that thinks being the underdog is fashionable?
So if a religious person holds an opinion he is evil, but if a Gay person holds the same opinion he is not evil? Interesting, not at all logical, but interesting in a pharmacological if not philosophical perspective.
(Time for me to go to work.)
I don’t know WHY they had that opinion, so I can’t be more specific than “they were wrong”. But being a target of persecution means there is a chance that they were honestly mistaken but well meaning; as opposed to the people who are doing the persecution, who are under no threat whatsoever from their victims.
You seriously need to study civil rights history with some eye for accuracy. The majorities consistently and sometimes violently resisted social justice until the minorities and others who supported justice and equality forced it upon them with persistent courage. Gradually , after years of effort and suffering, laws were passed that over time were accepted and seen as just. The point being, as it relates to this thread, the majority that resisted social change was often completely wrong.
I request that you pay closer attention and don’t attribute quotes to me that are not mine.
How did I misquote you?
In post #180 you quoted post #176 by Der Trihs but put it in a quote box for post #171 by Cosmosdan.
Hey! You’re right. Sorry about that.
Not a problem. It wasn’t nearly as disturbing as your misrepresentation of civil rights history.
Someone said civil rights progress was made in the face of endless opposition to the majority. This is simply not true. (Had it been true, there would have been no progress.) Further it is a rejection of the very basis of democracy, that free people will (generally, over a large enough trial) do the right thing.
The idea that people cannot be trusted to act morally attacks the very idea of our form of government. Further, it leads to very scary (and untrue) conclusions.
But I would like to know is HOW I managed to change a quote tag.
Nobody said this.
This is an inaccurate oversimplification of the conversation.
You said religious people have a right to their opinion. That’s true.
Voyager and I pointed out that actively trying to limit the rights of others is a bit more than expressing an opinion.
And this is such an oversimplification and denial of historical fact that it’s nonsense.
Perhaps you’d like to explain the long struggle against slavery and the decades long struggle for equal rights after it ended and how the majority supported equality through that time period.
Democracy is much much more than “majority rules” as our history of the struggle for equality clearly demonstrates. Any attempt to to use that to justify a denial of rights to one group doesn’t hold up to a simple cursory examination of history and facts.
Obviously democracy is more than majority rule. But certainly majority rule is part of it.
As for slavery, the history shows quite clearly that by the 1600s it was largely gone (save in Spanish America and Asia). History does not show mobs of Europeans rioting for their right to keep each other in chains. The majority or Europeans were opposed to slavery. This shows the vast majority are (over the long run and with various bumps along the way) decent and capable of self-rule.
But perhaps you can provide historical examples of national majorities advocating slavery. Ruling classes? Sure. The masses? Nope.
As Martin Luther King pointed, the arc of history is long but it tends toward freedom.
So we need not fear a free and open debate on SSM or any other subject. Nor need we call those who oppose us names and try to stifle them. It is only by a vigorous discussion that we reach the morally correct end.
I think you should take a look at this, Paul.
(Emphasis added to this second snip.)
Oh, right, Paul. I forgot that you folks have majority rule on your side.
You win.
Sigh.
Og Trans Fat, Global Village Idiot
(Yes. That guy.)
By the 1600s Europeans got rid of enslaving people who looked just like they did. And I just barely remember a teeny tiny bit of slavery in British settled North America also. Just to remind you of that minor unpleasantness of 150 years ago?
Given the length of time it took for England to outlaw the slave trade, I’d have to see some sort of evidence for the case that the majority of Europeans were against enslaving “inferior” races. I suspect they didn’t care, and Gallup was just starting up then.
BTW, there was a smidgen of slavery in Africa also at the time.
Slavery was permitted in the Constitution. if a vast national majority had opposed it before the Civil War, they might have managed to outlaw it. Remember, Lincoln freed the slaves in Confederate territory through a proclamation, and I wonder how much of the success of the constitutional amendment doing it was revenge against the south. Not that most of the south could participate in the process.
If King was right, and I hope he was, that doesn’t mean we need to have roadblocks on the way to freedom, or that people putting up the roadblocks are in some way aiding in the journey. No one is complaining about the discussion. I’m happy to support the right of anyone to tsk tsk at gay couples (or gay couples to tsk tsk at straight couples.) That’s is different from blocking SSM.
I’m old enough to have heard George Wallace and Orville Fabus speak their minds, in the late '50s and early '60s. I’ll call them as I see them.
Oddly, I am old enough to remember George Wallace and Orville Fabus changing their minds and apologizing.
I appreciate your acceptance of my contention that it is darn tough to find a majority that supported slavery.
Although you (and those arguing with me) do not fear debate, you seem to do all you can do to shut it down. Name-calling those who oppose you, saying their opinions do not count, these are not techniques that encourage the free exchange of ideas. These are techniques used by people who do not believe in democracy.
Nobody is trying to shut down any serious debate or an exchange of ideas. For a debate and exchange to mean anything it needs to remain grounded in facts rather than a ludicrous denial of historic fact.
When you’re willing to stop doing that you might be ready for the kind of debate you’re accusing us of shutting down.
So others are allowed to speak as long as they are not ludicrous. How very …
Well let me put it this way, I am also old enough to remember when China had complete freedom of speech, except for enemies of the people of course. You (the royal you, not the you-you) are doing all you can to shout down people, not to convince them.
(On whatever point we are arguing about at this point. I have lost track entirely.)