The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Joey D]

If everyone followed the law and didn't listen to their conscience, there wouldn't be a United States of America. Do your founding fathers also fit into this category? Does Muhammad Ali the draft dodger? Is Nelson Mandela in there too? Would you have told Rosa Parks to get to the back of the bus?

Protesting and the like are fine, using violence isn't. That's the difference. The Founding Fathers used mostly peaceful methods until the colonies were physically attacked, they didn't go on the offense right away by using force. Muhammad Ali is a situation I don't know about, but he's no hero. Nelson Mandela used peaceful means and so did Rosa Parks.

Threatening to kill your fellow countrymen is an act of domestic terrorism in my eyes and they should be dealt with accordance to the law.

This is of course with the Oath Keepers, which my post was originally about.

This is exactly what good Christians do and it's the kind of behaviour that makes America great, even if she's wrong.

No it isn't. Jesus never once said kill those who oppose you.

Also I'm a little curious how you know what makes America great? You live in South Detroit.

 

[Joel]

Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela defied and fought against codified legal persecution. Kim Davis decided to continue perpetuating legal persecution after the law was changed.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Protesting and the like are fine, using violence isn't. That's the difference. The Founding Fathers used mostly peaceful methods until the colonies were physically attacked, they didn't go on the offense right away by using force. Muhammad Ali is a situation I don't know about, but he's no hero. Nelson Mandela used peaceful means and so did Rosa Parks.

Violence is of course not the answer in the Kim Davis case and it should be dealt with accordingly. But since you mentioned it, the founding fathers didn't want to pay tax to a government seated overseas without having a say in how the taxes were spent. At the time, that was the law was it not? They didn't like the law, and inevitably it led to war and tens of thousands of people died. You might also recall that Mandela was in prison for a few years:

Although initially committed to non-violent protest, in association with the SACP he co-founded the militant Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) in 1961, leading a sabotage campaign against the apartheid government. In 1962, he was arrested, convicted of conspiracy to overthrow the state, and sentenced to life imprisonment in the Rivonia Trial.

You don't know about Muhammad Ali, but he's no hero. Nice assumption. Perhaps you should brush up on the life and times of a cocky, arrogant black man from the 60's who became the most famous person in the world and an inspiration to millions. Muhammad Ali was impossible in the 50's and at any time in American history before that. Muhammad Ali made Muhammad Ali possible by the sheer force of his personality.
http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/civil-rights-movement/essays/importance-muhammad-ali

• Journalist and television commentator Bryant Gumbel: “One of the reasons the civil rights movement went forward was that black people were able to overcome their fear. And I honestly believe that, for many black Americans, that came from watching Muhammad Ali. He simply refused to be afraid. And being that way, he gave other people courage.”

• Tennis legend and author Arthur Ashe: “Ali didn’t just change the image that African Americans have of themselves. He opened the eyes of a lot of white people to the potential of African Americans; who we are and what we can be.”

• Television reporter and interviewer Gil Noble: “Everybody was plugged into this man, because he was taking on America. There had never been anybody in his position who directly addressed himself to racism. Racism was virulent, but you didn’t talk about those things. If you wanted to make it in this country, you had to be quiet, carry yourself in a certain way, and not say anything about what was going on, even though there was a knife sticking in your chest. Ali changed all of that. He talked about racism and slavery and all of that stuff. And everybody who was black, whether they said it overtly or covertly, said ‘AMEN.’”

Threatening to kill your fellow countrymen is an act of domestic terrorism in my eyes and they should be dealt with accordance to the law.

Of course, I didn't say otherwise. After @Carbonox quoted me about the militia I removed it from my post to clarify that I was responding only to the part about Kim Davis.

Also I'm a little curious how you know what makes America great? You live in South Detroit.

Seriously?

 

[Joey D]

Violence is of course not the answer in the Kim Davis case and it should be dealt with accordingly. But since you mentioned it, the founding fathers didn't want to pay tax to a government seated overseas without having a say in how the taxes were spent. At the time, that was the law was it not? They didn't like the law, and inevitably it led to war and tens of thousands of people died. You might also recall that Mandela was in prison for a few years:

You have the right to protest all you want, but you will have to deal with the consequences. Kim Davis is in the wrong according to the law and therefore should deal with whatever the consequences. If I didn't obey by a judges ruling with something as simple as a traffic citation, I could be held in competent of court, whether I agree with the traffic citation or not.

Remember Kim Davis is a government employee and our country is setup that there needs to be a separation of church and state. Davis is trying to use her religion as an excuse to not do her government job. People like that have no place in any government position since laws shouldn't be based on religious beliefs. The only fair way for the government to look at marriage is either a.) get rid of any tax benefits which would make marriage more of a thing about love and commitment or b.) allow any two consenting adults to enter a marriages contract so everyone has the equal opportunity to get the tax breaks and other benefits.

Also I believe people like Mandela and the Founding Fathers were actually fighting for something that matters. Davis is just a bigot who selectively follows parts of the religion she subscribes too.

You don't know about Muhammad Ali, but he's no hero.

He's an athlete, athletes really aren't heros. They might be good people and do good things but being known for punching people for a living isn't really what I'd call heroic. Sure he was "inspirational" to many, but so is Floyd Mayweather and Mike Tyson.

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. How can someone who doesn't live in America possibly know what makes it great? I could ramble off things that I think would make Canada great, but since I've only ever visited there, how could I possibly know what I was on about?

 

[Joel]

We don't need to be contrarian moral relativists all the time. She's a bigot who was sucking on the public teat while willfully acting in contempt of court and refusing to carry out her job duties and denying others their rights. If you don't see the difference between that and Nelson Mandela I don't know what to say. And no, Nelson Mandela breaking apartheid laws is not equivalent to Kim Davis refusing to recognize people's rights because of her religion.

 

[Dan]

I took it as pointing out that the whole truth is not necessarily being reported, rather than pointing out what the whole truth is.

From all the reports I've seen, they made it clear that she denied licenses to everyone. Conservatives wouldn't give a crap if she denied licenses to LGBT people, but they would care and make it a big deal if straight people were denied them as well.

 

[A2K78]

As somebody who consider himself a bible-believing libertarian, like the florist and photographers who refused to cater gay weddings, Kim Davis just another example of what happen when government create "artificial rights" that in turn come into conflict with established law.

Speaking of, Tom Woods is beautiful as usual...

http://tomwoods.com/blog/shock-opponent-of-indiana-law-makes-inane-statement
http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-372-religious-freedom-freedom-of-association-and-that-indiana-law/

 

[Famine]

Kim Davis just another example of what happen when government create "artificial rights" that in turn come into conflict with established law.

Indeed. Creating the artificial rights of straight people to marriage against the Constitution did indeed lead to this situation.

 

[Danoff]

As somebody who consider himself a bible-believing libertarian, like the florist and photographers who refused to cater gay weddings, Kim Davis just another example of what happen when government create "artificial rights" that in turn come into conflict with established law.

The distinction between government (equal protection is required) and private (freedom of expression) is pretty key in this case. Kim Davis (government) is not similar to photographers or florists (private).

 

[TenEightyOne]

As somebody who consider himself a bible-believing libertarian, like the florist and photographers who refused to cater gay weddings, Kim Davis just another example of what happen when government create "artificial rights" that in turn come into conflict with established law.

As @Danoff points out; you're proceeding as if Kim Davis is somehow acting as a private individual.

 

[huskeR32]

As somebody who consider himself a bible-believing libertarian

If you can't see that Kim Davis' actions here are about as anti-libertarian as one could get, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

 

[Joey D]

As somebody who consider himself a bible-believing libertarian, like the florist and photographers who refused to cater gay weddings, Kim Davis just another example of what happen when government create "artificial rights" that in turn come into conflict with established law.

A florist or a photographer have the right to deny service to anyone they see fit since they are a private company. Private companies should be able to do what they want within the confines of the law. Same goes for churches that refuse to do a same-sex wedding, that's their right to do so. Kim Davis is a government official representing a public office, not a private company. I'm not sure how you are unable to make the distinction.

 

[Daniel]

A florist or a photographer have the right to deny service to anyone they see fit since they are a private company. Private companies should be able to do what they want within the confines of the law. Same goes for churches that refuse to do a same-sex wedding, that's their right to do so. Kim Davis is a government official representing a public office, not a private company. I'm not sure how you are unable to make the distinction.

Agreed. The bakery that got sued and forced to pay up $30- $130-something thousand should not have happened. I'm completely against what they did but it was their own choice and I think the backlash alone would have been enough punishment.

 

[FoolKiller]

After listening to Penn Jillett's podcast this week, I think I like his stance on Kim Davis: We are attacking a woman who did something we would defend if we agreed with her. How many times have we not let someone we disagreed with get away with "just doing my job?" In this case she is morally wrong, but that was not how she saw it in her mind. I don't agree with her, but she held to her convictions in a way most Americans wouldn't do even if they were in the right.

Also, this Kim Davis situation should be seen as a win. When the Supreme Court ruling first came out everyone predicted numerous cases like this, and there were even statements of such a nature made by multiple court clerks. Of all that was predicted and threatened we have one case. One. How many thousands of counties are there in the US? One.

Finally, the more attention we give her the more she will continue to act out. But she isn't the real story. I want to know the stories of the couples she refused. Instead of focusing on the person creating a problem lets focus on those willing to fight to overcome the hurdles to achieve their rights. Let's find out what they have gone through over the years and look at where they are today. The media focused on the negative the entire time. I have a feeling that when these couples get married it we will get a few pictures and a 30 second blurb. That will be it. It should be the other way around.

Imagine if the headlines read that John and Joe fight against a clerk that still refuses to grant them a marriage license. If the story was about John and Joe it would have been filled with inspiration and not hate and vitriol. If Kim Davis weren't thrust into the spotlight then Mike Huckabee wouldn't have shown up.

If you were attacking Kim Davis on social media and feel like she got off to easy, it is your fault. You drew the attention to her. You made her the center of the story and got her enough attention to draw out her supporters. If we had all been quiet and waited to see what happened first then the courts would have done their thing and large political figures wouldn't have shown up to try and draw votes.


The Kim Davis story turned ugly and hate filled on both sides, and that says far more about our society than any Supreme Court ruling.

 

[Famine]

We are attacking a woman who did something we would defend if we agreed with her.

All it would take to disprove that is an instance of defending someone with whom we disagree.

You have that in this thread, from restauranteurs to cake-makers and beyond. People disagree with their bigotry, but defend their right as private citizens and businesspeople to exercise it professionally. Kim Davis wasn't in the firing line for her views, but for attempting to impose those views on others through limiting access to public services.

It's not a case of agreeing with the law either - the Catholic B&B owners were prosecuted under the law and found guilty.

 

[FoolKiller]

All it would take to disprove that is an instance of defending someone with whom we disagree.

You have that in this thread, from restauranteurs to cake-makers and beyond. People disagree with their bigotry, but defend their right as private citizens and businesspeople to exercise it professionally. Kim Davis wasn't in the firing line for her views, but for attempting to impose those views on others through limiting access to public services.

It's not a case of agreeing with the law either - the Catholic B&B owners were prosecuted under the law and found guilty.

But the larger meme has been "Do your 🤬 job!"

No one screams that when a government official (the key to this whole situation, and why it is different from the private businesses) disobeys a law that we dislike or acts as a conscientious objector.

Compare it to, say, Bradley/Chelsea Manning.

 

[CodeRedR51]

If we had all been quiet and waited to see what happened first then the courts would have done their thing and large political figures wouldn't have shown up to try and draw votes.

In all honesty, that's now how things work anymore.

 

[FoolKiller]

In all honesty, that's now how things work anymore.

and that says far more about our society than any Supreme Court ruling.

 

[Famine]

But the larger meme has been "Do your 🤬 job!"

Which is only really passably relevant.

No one screams that when a government official (the key to this whole situation, and why it is different from the private businesses) disobeys a law that we dislike or acts as a conscientious objector.

Compare it to, say, Bradley/Chelsea Manning.

This seems to be a comment about wider US society than the "we" that is GTPlanet...

 

[Danoff]

No one screams that when a government official (the key to this whole situation, and why it is different from the private businesses) disobeys a law that we dislike or acts as a conscientious objector.

Compare it to, say, Bradley/Chelsea Manning.

It's not about law at all. There are tons of laws that the people who frequent this forum will rail about, and tons that they will support. It's also not about whether or not we agree. I take two completely different stands on the same position (bigotry against gay people) where in both cases it's the person's job (cake maker, clerk). The sticking point in this case is that the government is bound by equal protection whereas private citizens are not. If a cake maker practices bigotry, there is the market to respond. When a clerk does it the minority that it affects has no recourse. That's why equal protection exists, and it's why rights exist - to protect the individual.

 

[niky]

I'm inclined to partially agree with Penn... then I wonder. Would I applaud a government functionary with-holding welfare checks from a convicted pedophile? Or prison officials blocking the release of a convicted murderer after the court revisits his case and throws it out on a technicality?

I'm thinking... no. The rule of law, at least when it comes to government service, must hold. It's like the mail. It's a guaranteed service contract.

-

And this is speaking as one who doesn't think private businesses should be forced to cater to events they don't want to cater. Like gay weddings, satanic rituals or bar mitzvahs.

 

[Daniel]

And this is speaking as one who doesn't think private businesses should be forced to cater to events they don't want to cater. Like gay weddings, satanic rituals or bar mitzvahs.

 

[Joey D]

@Daniel

Way to make me miss my hometown. Detroit, such a fantastic place.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I've seen that, "I don't know" guy in another video somewhere. I thought he was clowning and playing a character in the other one but maybe not.

 

[niky]

I lost it at "Notice me, Senpai, noootice me!"

Trolling successful!

 

[FoRiZon]

Omg the fedora ruins everything.

 

[Daniel]

Omg the fedora improves everything.

 

[Dan]

 

[FoolKiller]

Which is only really passably relevant.

I feel the difference between "Do your job" and "you broke the law" are not that far apart in this case, as doing her job is the law. She broke the law by not doing her job for personal, moral reasons (which most of us here disagree with). Would Kim Davis supporters feel the same if she was refusing to issue gun licenses? Would her opponents feel the same if it were a different cause? I didn't hear most of them screaming for the impeachment of Obama when he refused to enforce drug or immigration laws. And I am judging myself in this as well. This is not finger pointing as much as it is saying, "What are we doing? What has happened to make us this way?"

I honestly feel that outside the courtroom this is not a case of broke the law vs freedom or liberty, so much as it is a case of showing our righteousness in our opinions/beliefs.

This seems to be a comment about wider US society than the "we" that is GTPlanet...

I was speaking of society in general, thus my last sentence. I had hoped that was clear. If not, that is most likely on me.



I'm suddenly feeling like watching a couple of episodes of Black Mirror.

It's not about law at all.

She didn't go to jail for being a bigot. She didn't go to jail for standing up for her (misunderstood) rights. She went to jail for violating a state law, which has no mention of equal protection anywhere in its language.

 

[Danoff]

She didn't go to jail for being a bigot. She didn't go to jail for standing up for her (misunderstood) rights. She went to jail for violating a state law, which has no mention of equal protection anywhere in its language.

To be clear, she's not being criticized for breaking the law. The reason she's in jail is not the reason she's being criticized. She's also not being criticized by me (and some others) for being a bigot, at least not yet. She's also not being criticized specifically for not doing her job, at least not by me.

I'm criticizing her for applying a bias in a government position that she's not allowed to apply. She's an elected official, and has a duty to her constituency. If a federal judge said "I like white people, so I'm refusing to convict anyone who comes before my court who is white" people would be up in arms. Not because he liked white people, and not because he was refusing to do his job, but because he was not adhering to a fundamental requirement of the office - impartiality.

For me, at least, this has absolutely zero to do with righteousness of beliefs. For her, it has everything to do with it.