As it turns out, State-regulated marriage was a Protestant thing. My point here is that governments did not invent marriage - people did. It worked just fine before governments got involved.
Well that just brings us full circle to where we're at: a climate that doesn't allow the LGBT community to marry. The LGBT community doesn't want the local Catholic Church to acknowledge them as a union (the church won't do it). It wants to get rid of a climate that explicitly forbids the community to marry. This is a climate that was born out of these local churches, and their belief that homosexuality was a disease that corrupted the minds of "good, moral Christians." The problem isn't that the LGBT community failed to establish its own local denomination and its own rules of marriage. The problem is that in the eyes of a strong religious population, the homosexuals were deemed a social problem, to the point that laws were established to prohibit sexual acts between members of the same sex, to the point that the Church tried to "cure" them, and to the point that policy (such as immigration) deemed them "unacceptable."
Let's talk property rights.
A white guy owns a business. A white customer walks in and causes a ruckus. The white owner gets on his ass about it and kicks him out.
Then a black customer walks in and causes a ruckus. The white owner gets on his ass about it and kicks him out. He then has a discrimination lawsuit filed against him by the black customer, and the white owner's only choices are to either settle or lose the lawsuit and pay even more.
A black guy owns a business. A white customer walks in and causes a ruckus. The black owner gets on his ass about it and kicks him out. The white customer files a lawsuit against the black owner but it is thrown out of court because affirmative action laws virtually prevent the majority, whites, from claiming discrimination against the minority, everybody else.
I'm Latino... pretty nerd looking to be honest. But I tend to attract a lot of attention in predominantly white neighborhoods. Too much, I think.
Ever been followed at a store, because the employees thought that maybe you'd do something wrong (such as steal something)? Take a look at this video:
.
* My favorite part is when the guy says "oh I bet she used the race card."
As you see, white customers don't arouse such suspicions, because the criminality society oftentimes attributes to blacks simply isn't attributed to whites. That's because you don't see whites in gangs or doing violent things in the media (and if you do, no one says "boy, these whites are really violent and out of control!") Whites don't arouse suspicions in white neighborhoods, nor in neighborhoods of color.
In sum... society's interpretations of these people causing a ruckus:
white agitator: a crazy person causing a ruckus (he is an individual)
black agitator: another black person causing a ruckus (he is a member of his racial group... he is not an individual, he is representative of society's views of blacks, a trait he carries because of his skin color).
Now let's talk about the employment environment.
A large corporation has two potential hires, one white and one black, both completely equal in qualification, differentiated only by their skin color... By law, the corporation is forced to take the minority candidate or risk such a lawsuit and eventual payout, even if they don't want to hire that person.
Corporations aren't "forced" to hire a black person over the white person. In fact, they tend to hire whites over the equally competent black candidate. A study came out last year that confirmed these preferences... the researchers sent mock applications to numerous corporations, the only difference between candidates being their names. What they saw was that names like "black" names, such as "Washington" or "LaToya" received less call backs for interviews than "white" names such as "McBride" or "Dennis."
Businesses aren't forced to place an affirmative action program... they are merely refrained from using race as a basis for hiring and firing. Some corporations changed their hiring policies, making diversity a company goal. Some went at lengths to make sure discrimination didn't occur in the workplace (threatening to fire those who discriminated in the workplace). That could be either because they fear claims, or because they truly believe in having a racist, sexist, homophobic-free workplace.
The corporation is virtually forced by law to hire the black person over the white person because affirmative action laws favor minorities' ability to claim employment discrimination, something which is virtually impossible for the white person to do without being laughed at.
Untrue... whites, since the 70s, have been able to claim discrimination based on race. The Supreme Court has made this possible... UC Regents v. Bakke (which stated that the 14th amendment and title 7 of the Civil Rights Act is not limited to nonminorities). Ricci v. DeStefani and Wygant v. Jackson Board are instances of whites being successful in having these claims taken seriously.
A lot of claims brought up by minorities are thrown out the window as well. That's because judges think we live in a color-blind society.
You can't deny that situations which I've described don't actually happen - this stuff is in the news occasionally. I suppose you could deny it, but then you'd be wrong and that's not very helpful. I've already stated my opinions on the subject in the Racism thread, and nobody has bothered arguing against my view because they know it's actually the truth.
Ah ha! At last, you have found someone that has actually studied racial relations in the US, and can actually formulate an argument or two against your unchallenged views (not "truth" in my opinion).
This discussion does not need to be in the racism thread, since the topic of race was brought up while discussing Paul, and his views. This all goes to my opinion that Paul often overlooks this history of race (at least in his current presidential campaign). Sometimes, he has surprised me, though.
Could be that there are few race-conscious Latinos playing GT, or that are actually members in this site. Don't take this as a definitive statement though, since that doesn't give me the exclusive authority to discuss race. In fact, I invite anyone to discuss it.
Doesn't matter if they were doing wrong - it was not the North's problem to solve. The Confederate States of America seceded legally and established its own government. By your logic, it is the United States's duty to intervene in countries around the world and straighten them out. That is our current foreign policy. How well has that worked out for us?
The South, in my book, seceded because the North wanted the South to end slavery... something that irked the South. States like Texas and California created huge tensions, because no one knew whether they would be slave states or not. To continue doing its will, the South did what it thought was best: leave.
The Confederate States of America wasn't a country like Iraq and Mexico. These nations were born independent of US intervention. The South was actually a part of the US. Losing the South meant losing the political power, land, workforce, and the taxes that the South provided. I think it had a right to defend what once was a part of the US.
No, I'm not. I merely pointed out how they both rely on the same source for their political inspiration.
👍
