U.S. Supreme Court legalizes nationwide gay marriage

Xurtio · 06-29-2015, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grtwhtgrvty

This is a thread celebrating the next step towards equality for LGBT people. It's cool that you're an ally, etc. etc, thank you. Even though it's the bare minimum. Obviously everyone should be, but yeah, that's cool. That being said, it's like going to a rape support group as a non rape victim and citing things rape apologists have said on twitter. It's not your problem, so why are you coming to a celebratory thread and citing these homophobic things that actually trigger and affect actual gay people negatively, and have no actual effect on you.

It'd be one thing if it was actual LGBT people feeling oppressed by the person's commentary, and was coming to this thread to express this feeling in order to gain emotional support, but it's not. It's a middle aged straight man who's life is more or less unaffected, perpetuating the bigotry of someone who isn't even bigoted towards him.

It seems like a sorry attempt to get cozy with gay people and solidify your role as an ally. It doesn't bring anything positive to the conversation. All it did is, once again, emphasize the fact that you are indeed a straight man who is pro gay rights, while simultaneously perpetuating bigotry through unintelligent, meaningless commentary, ultimately serving as a glorified bumper sticker for the anti-gay movement.

It's not like you're sticking up for anyone. You're not negatively affected by this, and in need of support. You're just trying to find another excuse to feel good about yourself, to use this movement as a platform for self righteousness, possibly negatively affecting gay people, and reminding them of their personal struggle and oppression in the process.

Yeah he does need to shut up. Maybe you should stop quoting him for literally no reason. You're only perpetuating homophobia and embedding the feeling of oppression in LGBT people by needlessly citing anti-gay remarks as a straight person.

Such indignance... I don't see in any way how those comments perpetuate homophobia. Is it possible you have a demented perspective here?

Chula Vista · 06-29-2015, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grtwhtgrvty

It'd be one thing if it was actual LGBT people feeling oppressed by the person's commentary, and was coming to this thread to express this feeling in order to gain emotional support, but it's not. It's a middle aged straight man who's life is more or less unaffected, perpetuating the bigotry of someone who isn't even bigoted towards him.

My mom is gay. I was brought up in a gay household. I have a lot of very close gay friends. What exactly is your problem dude?

Xurtio · 06-29-2015, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

alright, but i think the basic spirit of my initial point is unaffected by either of these nuanced attempts at contradicting what i said. my basic point is that if the issue was left up to individual states, this issue would have dragged on for at least the next few decades.

Why do you use persuasion tactics like this? "Nuanced attempts and contradicting what I said". It seems kind of disingenuous when you use that wording, like you're implying we're just out to get you and not having rational discourse.

For clarity, I was responding to what I percieved as a false dilemma. When you said:

"democracy is inefficient and clumsy and that autocratic rule has its perks, which westerners generally refuse to acknowledge out of some dogmatic dedication to the ideological baggage of the enlightenment"

To me, it's like saying a "toothpick is so ineffective for killing flies compared to a frag grenade" while you're holding a flyswatter.

Josef K · 06-29-2015, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

alright, but i think the basic spirit of my initial point is unaffected by either of these nuanced attempts at contradicting what i said. my basic point is that if the issue was left up to individual states, this issue would have dragged on for at least the next few decades.

I don't understand why that's more "democratic" than everyone in the country voting and SSM winning out - and since, again, the majority supports SSM, that's what would have happened had there been such a vote.

Quote:

the same basic logic applies to say racial desegregation or the abolition of slavery. the way the 'republic' was originally set up to work, as a voluntary collection of individual states, has essentially been overruled by a more centrally controlled and slightly more autocratic federal system.

and then we simply arbitrarily decide when to support 'states rights' vs majority rule on a federal basis, depending on where we happen to stand on any particular issue. i.e. i see liberals whine about the DEA enforcing federal drug laws in states that are passing legislation to decriminalize or legalize marijuana, and then the same liberals will turn around and rejoice at the federal system imposing the legalization of same sex marriage on states where the populace disagrees and in some cases the states have actually moved to put in place legislation that would ban the practice.

it seems like putting in place a constitutional amendment is so damn impossible that we've opted in favor of the supreme court using a sort of convoluted logic to change laws via interpreting the existing constitution, based on their political persuasion. and then the only way this is still changed by citizens voting is indirectly; liberal presidents appointing liberal justices and vice versa.

where as if we just got ourselves a nice strong vladimir putin type dictator, he could bypass all this bureaucratic nonsense and be like "nah son, here's how this **** is going to go"

Well yeah, of course nobody as a matter of ideology supports states' rights vs. federal power, just like how "judicial philosophy" in general is a sham. Court cases are a way of making policy, and all judges would like the policy that they're making to be policy they approve of. So, yeah, everybody uses legal arguments and says they think x reading of the constitution is better than y reading for some convoluted reason, but really they're just going to use whatever theory is prevalent at the time to support the policy position they like. I don't think that's a bad thing necessarily, and I think if more people recognized it instead of treating the constitution like it's the word of God we'd be better off. But I don't see how you get from there to "let's have a dictator!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

If only gay people supported this change it wouldn't have happened. You should be grateful millions of straight people are on your side. That's a pretty shitty attitude.

Okay, I think his post is very wrongheaded, but I don't really agree with this either. You don't get any credit for supporting (maybe less than) basic human rights, and he as a gay person does not have to be grateful to you just because you don't hate him for who is. That's ridiculous. That said, it isn't a reason why you shouldn't be able to post about how much of an idiot Ted Cruz is.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 06-29-2015, 07:20 PM

@ xurtio

it's not a false dilemma, because a false dilemma is when you provide two choices as if they are the only possible choices, which i didn't do. i made a general statement about democracy and another general statement about autocratic rule. they're two extreme ends of a spectrum, as you noted. i think the supreme court decision helps highlight a perk of the more autocratic portion of that spectrum, even if the US isn't actually an autocratic regime. my basic point was in the efficacy of centralized control vs distributed control. the supreme court centrally changing the law of the land is more efficient than waiting on each state to change state laws, even though the latter, to me, seems more in the spirit of a representative democracy/republic.

grtwhtgrvty · 06-29-2015, 07:25 PM

--

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

If only gay people supported this change it wouldn't have happened. You should be grateful millions of straight people are on your side. That's a pretty shitty attitude.

You know what.. You're so right.

Thank you straight people for giving me my rights that you've withheld from me all these years. I still fear for my life every single day, and I'm still seen by the majority of the world as a mentally ill mistake that needs to be executed, but thank you so much for all of your support.

What can I ever do to return the favor? You've given THIS to me. Thank you for supporting me when I was having bricks thrown at my face and getting the **** beaten out of me. Thank you for supporting me when i disowned and homeless. I'm so grateful that you were there for us when were were lynched and jailed and stigmatized and ostracized. I fear for my life every single day, but your support is what keeps me safe and keeps me strong. I'm so grateful that you're all finally realizing that we should have basic human rights. Even though it's not straight people at the Stonewall riots, at the life ball, pioneering aids awareness, marching in pride parades. Thank you so much for sitting at home on your computer and saying "I'm pro gay" and I'm sure that the man who wasn't able to see his husband while he died in the hospital will remember your support fondly.

You're right. I shouldn't of taken your support for granted. I realize now that I don't have the RIGHT to take basic human rights for granted, the way that you can.

Thank you all for once again implying that I'm mentally ill because I once again, disagree with you. Thanks for misinterpreting my entire point. I'm not getting a brick thrown at my face, having my life threatened, or living on the streets because my parents don't love me anymore, at this exact moment, but you know what, you guys have earned the right to remind me of that by pointing out that there are still people who want me dead.

All I wanted was for straight people who aren't even remotely oppressed by homophobia to stop citing homophobic people and triggering gay people needlessly in a thread that is about celebrating marriage equality, but that was selfish, and ungrateful of me, because you've all done so ****ing much.

Thank you. I was so shortsighted. Now I see the light. Thank you straight people for giving me and all other young gays the support during our homelessness, disownment, being murdered, death threats, assault, conversion therapy, etc, etc. I didn't realize at the time, but in retrospect, I can now see all of you there, "supporting" me. I can see now that you've earned the right to remind me and pull that trigger. So feel free to continue causing emotional trauma with your needless reminders that there are people on this planet that would sooner have me dead than support gay rights. That's so necessary, and I see that now.

I'm gonna leave this thread now because this is obviously a thread for all of you straight people. Good job. You've given us marriage. Thank you. Enjoy and celebrate YOUR victory because this is obviously a product of all of your determination. It sure takes a lot of balls to do the bare minimum. If you ever want to diagnose me with mental illness again, you can feel free to PM me. It's not like the mods give a ****.

DwnWthVwls · 06-29-2015, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josef K

Okay, I think his post is very wrongheaded, but I don't really agree with this either. You don't get any credit for supporting (maybe less than) basic human rights, and he as a gay person does not have to be grateful to you just because you don't hate him for who is. That's ridiculous. That said, it isn't a reason why you shouldn't be able to post about how much of an idiot Ted Cruz is.

There is a difference between tolerance (not hating him for who he is) and support (fighting for his right to equality). He should be grateful for the support of other people regardless of their sexual orientation. I didn't say anything about tolerance.

I guess the Jews shouldn't be grateful for all the people who fought against Hitler based on your logic.

grtwhtgrvty · 06-29-2015, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

There is a difference between tolerance (not hating him for who he is) and support (fighting for his right to equality). He should be grateful for the support of other people regardless of their sexual orientation. I didn't say anything about tolerance.

I guess the Jews shouldn't be grateful for all the people who fought against Hitler based on your logic.

It's ironic how you're so ****ing arrogant despite completely misinterpreting my post.

Xurtio · 06-29-2015, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

@ xurtio

it's not a false dilemma, because a false dilemma is when you provide two choices as if they are the only possible choices, which i didn't do. i made a general statement about democracy and another general statement about autocratic rule. they're two extreme ends of a spectrum, as you noted. i think the supreme court decision helps highlight a perk of the more autocratic portion of that spectrum, even if the US isn't actually an autocratic regime. my basic point was in the efficacy of centralized control vs distributed control. the supreme court centrally changing the law of the land is more efficient than waiting on each state to change state laws, even though the latter, to me, seems more in the spirit of a representative democracy/republic.

See, I wouldn't call SCOTUS decision autocratic at all - they were voting in the interest of the majority. I still feel like your vision is black and white, even if not technically a false dilemma or possibly that your definition of autocracy is oversimplified.

grtwhtgrvty · 06-29-2015, 07:35 PM

Also how ****ing pretentious that you literally compared yourself to someone fighting against Hitler in world war 2.

06-29-2015, 07:20 PM	#245 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	@ xurtio it's not a false dilemma, because a false dilemma is when you provide two choices as if they are the only possible choices, which i didn't do. i made a general statement about democracy and another general statement about autocratic rule. they're two extreme ends of a spectrum, as you noted. i think the supreme court decision helps highlight a perk of the more autocratic portion of that spectrum, even if the US isn't actually an autocratic regime. my basic point was in the efficacy of centralized control vs distributed control. the supreme court centrally changing the law of the land is more efficient than waiting on each state to change state laws, even though the latter, to me, seems more in the spirit of a representative democracy/republic.

06-29-2015, 07:35 PM	#250 (permalink)
grtwhtgrvty jiojoijoi Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 398	Also how ****ing pretentious that you literally compared yourself to someone fighting against Hitler in world war 2.