“Yes, I care about the oppression if it takes people’s right to empower themselves. If they can’t express their grievances, if they can’t amass support, if they cannot defend themselves, if they cannot vote, then I think they are being oppressed. They might be capable to do all those things and still fail in their attempts and fail to convince enough people to vote for whatever it is they are striving for but they should be free to try.”
I don’t understand that at all. Homosexuals, of course, can do all of the things you listed with regards to gay marriage. They are still being treated unequally based on religious tradition, and that is an injustice.
“Marriage between whites and blacks was not illegal.”
That is incorrect. Many states had made laws against interracial marriage, therefore it was illegal. Most of the South had similar laws up until a ruling by the Supreme Court in 1967 made all of those laws invalid.
Here’s the wikipedia article on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws
“So, people were murdered in response to black-white couplings and no one enforced the law against murder. Its quite a different situation then the current one regarding gay marriage.”
That particular aspect youy focused on, of vigilante violence not being punished, is different from the gay marriage issue. The other issue, of both types of marriage at one point being against the law, is exactly the same.
“Now you are being argumentative for no good reason. You get my point.”
No, I’m not being argumentative for no reason (although that sounds like a line straight out of the argument room in Monty Python). But your point was that historically, in every culture, marriage has always meant “one man, one woman”. I disputed that because it’s not true – it has also in times and cultures meant “one man, many women”.
“Except most of the TV news in Europe is owned by the various governments and the newspapers owned by the parties in government. But that has little to suggest their freedom. The fact that the governments of Europe will fine you for expressing certain opinions is an infringement of the freedom of the press.”
Most? I’m not sure about that. Sure, most European countries have a government news service – but there is also the AP, and plenty of private European news organizations. The point is, there isn’t that consolidatino.
Which opinions are being fined in Europe? How often does this occur, and what is the result?
“So you admit that FOX is not very different from CNN or MSNBC?”
There aren’t many substantive differences. They all distort stories to protect certain corporations they have ties to. Fox packages all their news with a heavily right-wing ideology, and often their editorialists distort facts, but there are certain issues they won’t cover that the other organizations also won’t cover.
“Freedom of the press means that anyone who can get a hold of a means to expression can use it at their own discretion. We have that in this country to a far higher degree then Europe. Just because most people choose to get their news from only a couple of sources, and that is changing to a very large degree, does not mean the government limiting our freedom of the press.”
They have the right to give it a shot, sure, but I doubt they will be able to compete with FOX or any of the other major news networks. It’s structured to shut out competition.
“This conversation is one example. We are publishing our opinions and it is open to anyone to read, if they choose.”
Yeah, but we aren’t competing as news media. We are one some tiny blog in the middle of internet nowhere. The author of the blog also has complete control of whose comments get posted and whose don’t. It’s not as free as it seems.
“In the US, a pretrial hearing usually leads to the dismissal of the case. It is only if there is some possibility that one is making up information to libel the plaintiff then it might go to trial. Otherwise you are free to criticize anyone. It just has to be backed by facts. That is not true of Europe.”
It’s not true of Europe? Libel cases don’t get dismissed?
“What about the freedom of a business owner to hire and fire whom he chooses?”
There are good freedoms and bad freedoms. The freedom to discriminate in hiring practices is a bad freedom – like stealing. It’s unjust and leads to a worse-off society. I don’t favor that freedom.
“What about the business owners right to buy and sell from and to whom he chooses? seems to me you only like the “feedom” talking points the Left has fed you. Its okay to repress the freedom of business people, those who make this country the opportunity filled place that it has been”
The freedom to lock people out of jobs because of the color of their skin, sexual orientation, religon, etc., will ultimately be a harmful freedom. Who is clamoring for the right to discriminate? No one but bigots. Fuck ‘em.
“while gays, whose gayness produces nothing and gives nothing to society, need freedom.”
That’s a pretty strong blanket statement, there – homosexuality has contributed absolutely nothing to the culture?
But whether their gayness is productive or not, they deserve freedom.
“But, if the boss doesn’t want to hire the woman because he does not want to deal with the temptation, I think that is fair.”
I think that a man who is such an animal that he can’t control himself around a woman and would use coercion to get sex from her is a scumbag with no place in adult society.
“If the boss does not want blacks in his workplace because he hates them then why should he have deal with a black, day in and day out.”
Because it might help him overcome his predjudice, for one. But I don’t really care what Mr. KKK wants – he can go fuck himself. I don’t want blacks to be shut out of economic oppurtunity any more than they already are.
“I don’t think there is a problem when a businessman decides to fill a niche.”
Racism is a niche we don’t want around in society. Most people are trying to overcome racism, and it’s like you want to hang on to it. We should make absolutely no special effort to protect the feelings of “poor widdle wacists”.
“You seem not to understand the wire-tapping issue. First off, the Government is allowed to tap into calls made by a Syrian, in Syria, to a Iraqi in Afghanistan if the call is being carried over lines owned by American telecommunications companies.”
No, they are tapping into calls made by Americans outside of the US. The phone companies allowed them to listen to millions of calls. That was the scandal.
More importantly, we have no idea who they are actually listening to. We only have their word that they aren’t abusing this power.
“They cannot whisk an American away, while at home, and take him or her to Cuba or where ever and then hold them there indefinitely.”
Noted. They can’t legally send an American. A Canadian, yes – and they did. They sent a Canadian to Syria, where he was tortured. Though it isn’t a violation of American civil rights, it is a violation of human rights.
“A German in Yemen is not protected by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.”
They should be protected by decency and a true belief in freedom and human rights – not just for Americans, but for everyone.
“BTW, none of the evidence gleaned by wire-tapping can be used in an American court of law. You are safe.”
Well, I doubt there is much of interest to them in my phone conversations. I haven’t called anyone outside the country. But I’m not only concerned about my rights.
“Look, you are not a patriot. You don’t care about your tribe, as you say.”
I don’t care about my tribe – I care about rights. I care about humanity in general.
“Family doesn’t mean much to you.”
That’s utter bullshit. Your particular concept of family that excludes gay people doesn’t mean anything to me. I have a very strong connection to my family.
“What you care about is yourself and being free to do anything you feel like.”
Your analysis of my character is quite inaccurate. I have principles that are stronger than self-interest. That’s what I have been talking about this whole time – that is what my whole argument is founded on. I have no personal stake in the gay marriage issue – I’m not gay, and I doubt I’ll ever get married (or really want to).
“You project this desire into your politics whose basic premise is, “insist on your right to crap the bed”.”
How do I insist on such a thing in any of my posts?
Piss off. I understand real, practical liberty, for all people – you only believe in sham liberty. I’m Captain Fucking America compared to you.
“I have given you reasons and example enough of my views and they do not suite you.”
You’ve given me a few reasons with regards to the gay marriage issue. For you, it’s all about this word “marriage” and what will happen if we slightly alter the meaning of it. And you seem to think America is going to collapse and the world will end. It is a very irrational and superstitious fear.
Once again, I want to remind you that we agree on civil unions.
“Hopefully, for you, you’ll find a skill which earns you enough money to go somewhere where you’ll have all the freedoms you need.”
You’re making an assumption about my life, here, based on your stereotype of the “lazy, leechy Leftist”. you had the gall to call me a political bigot?
“Maybe we’ll even elect one of the leftist-fascists”
Careful with that word “fascist”. I don’t even think it describes Bush and Cheney – and I think you’ve gotten a sense of what I think about them. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton are even close to fascist, and your precious Bush Administration is probably as close as we’ve come to it.
Fascist has become an empty word that gets thrown around improperly.
“and then the country will get all fixed up and set to be the environment you like.”
Hey, maybe they will pull us out of the middle of the civil war we uncorked in Iraq – you know, the one that Dick Cheney predicted back in 1994 when asked why they didn’t overthrow Saddam in the Gulf War.
