Originally Posted By Mr X ***But those confined by the 1942 executive order lost just about everything---- stores, homes, cars, family treasures--- including personal freedoms. To equate losing marital status with mandatory relocation in the desert is beyond ludicrous. Furthermore, invoking a black voice to narrate parallels between the struggles of blacks over the years to same genered couples losing marital status is also offensive to blacks.*** You've said this before, and I'll give you the same reply. It's pretty offensive that you're using the term "offensive" in this context. Of course you come off as reasonable when you equate simple marriage equality to the treatment of blacks, Japanese and others. But if you look at the BIGGER PICTURE, you can not argue that gays have been any less oppressed throughout history, including of course in America. How many have been cast out? Shunned? Imprisoned? Outright killed? Did Hitler spare the gays? Have they until very recent history ever been accepted into ANY society as a whole? At least the Blacks have a homeland to point to in Africa, and the Japanese have Japan (thus the really best case to equate this struggle would be with the Jews, if anyone). So, it's not about marriage. It's about equality. Same as the issue of whites only water fountains and "back of the bus" treatment, when you stop and think about it. Do you think anyone should've scolded the black activists for complaining about segregation, since that's hardly "rough treatment" compared to what was done to the Japanese just a couple of decades before? Accuse them of being "offensive" to the Japanese who received much worse treatment?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "but if something like the draft registration for males is an equally wrong form of discrimination to you then why haven't you been as outraged(at least on this board) about it as the denial of same gender marriage? The two issues that I see you take very strong stances on around here are abortion and same gender marriage." If the issue was ripe, I probably would be. Registering for the draft and having one are two different distinct things. And if our country is in such a spot as to re-institute the draft, we'll all have a host of things to belly ache about.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It seems a lot less silly than equating recognition of same sex marriage with internment or Jim Crow laws.> No, equating intelligence with gender, race or sexual orientation is quite a bit sillier. <The idea that all discrimination is equally wrong seems absurd to me.> How about just "discrimination (based on an inherent human quality) is wrong." The concept of "equally wrong" or "some is more wrong than others" is a misguided concept, often designed to pit people against each other. It's like asking "which is more important: freedom of speech, religion, assembly, or the press? And which is least important and could be jettisoned?" Well, one isn't "more" important than the others, except in an academic dorm-room bull session kind of way. In the real world, they're ALL important, all necessary, and that's the bottom line. When we start asking which basic freedoms are more important, or which forms of discrimination are "worse," we open the door to the idea that losing some of the freedoms would be acceptable, or that some forms of discrimination would be. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's like asking "which is more important: freedom of speech, religion, assembly, or the press?> No, it's not. It's like trying to say that murder and jaywalking are equally wrong.
Originally Posted By barboy ///When we start asking which basic freedoms are more important, or which forms of discrimination are "worse," we open the door to the idea that losing some of the freedoms would be acceptable, or that some forms of discrimination would be./// I don't see it like that. I am quite capable of listing or creating a hierachy of freedoms where some are more important than others. Just because I place the mandatory draft resistry for males astronomically lower on the egregious scale compared to the lawful mutilation of blacks doesn't mean that I give the registry a pass. I think the registry concurrently violates civil liberties and civil rights. Again, all freedoms are important but some are more important than others.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Again, all freedoms are important but some are more important than others.> Part of me understands that, but part of me doesn't like where that thinking can lead. We need to jealously protect all our freedoms and civil liberties; it's not a "gimme" that we'll always keep them. And it's kind of like choosing between your children. You may actually have a favorite, but you certainly wouldn't sacrifice any of them willingly.
Originally Posted By barboy ///And it's kind of like choosing between your children. You may actually have a favorite, but you certainly wouldn't sacrifice any of them willingly./// That's fair enough.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>No, it's not. It's like trying to say that murder and jaywalking are equally wrong.<< No, it isn't. It's like saying the murder of a black person isn't as important as the murder of a white person.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder ">>No, it's not. It's like trying to say that murder and jaywalking are equally wrong.<< No, it isn't. It's like saying the murder of a black person isn't as important as the murder of a white person." His view of gay marriage infects his thoughts here, so of course he sees it this way. Seriously.
Originally Posted By barboy X, you had so much going with your 100 that I didn't know where to begin. I didn't disregard it ---- actually I read it 3 times. I am a bit hesitant to address some of it as it might open a can of worms and lead to frustration for both of us. But I'll try anyway. I'll have to adopt my own policy of incrementalism to do it justice--- just one bite at a time. This was mine: "But those confined by the 1942 executive order lost just about everything---- stores, homes, cars, family treasures--- including personal freedoms. To equate losing marital status with mandatory relocation in the desert is beyond ludicrous." 2 things about it: one, I still stand by it and two I'm not sure why you brought it up because your: "You've said this before, and I'll give you the same reply. It's pretty offensive that you're using the term "offensive" in this context." looks misplaced. Your statement does work with my: "Furthermore invoking a black voice to narrate parallels between the stuggles of blacks over the years to same gendered couples losing marital status is also offensive to blacks" I still stand by that one too and I don't know why you find my usage of 'offensive' offensive to you? Using a black voice in the ad can offend because it wrongly assumes that blacks are on board with 'no 8' when, obviously, collectively they are not. And it goes deeper than that. Using a black voice was overtly intentional to garner sympathy for the 'no 8' cause. The cause should be able to stand on its own logical, fair merits without having to equate the denial of same gender marital status with systematic race segregation. It goes back to my claim that some inequalities are more egregious than others. The twenty something gay couple has no moral right, I say, to tell a 90 year old black woman who grew up in segregation that both suffered equally under the law.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Using a black voice in the ad can offend because it wrongly assumes that blacks are on board with 'no 8' when, obviously, collectively they are not.> And if they used a white voice, would that assume that whites, collectively were on board with "no on 8?" One can only assume that the black actor they used was on board with it. Is he expected to represent his entire race, or can't he just take the job because he believes in it as an individual?
Originally Posted By barboy Good questions Dabob, but I'm still working on X's #100. After that I'll get back to you.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "One can only assume that the black actor they used was on board with it. Is he expected to represent his entire race, or can't he just take the job because he believes in it as an individual?" What if he was just the one who read the ad copy the way they wanted it? Why do we have to read anything into the idea that he "sounds black"? Why should should he not get the job BECAUSE he sounds black? This just seems to be making something out of what was probably not much to start with.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No, it isn't. It's like saying the murder of a black person isn't as important as the murder of a white person.> No it isn't. It's more like a person with a kid getting a credit on his taxes, and a person without a kid not getting a credit on his taxes. The fight for recognition of same sex marriage just isn't the same as the fight for racial equality. There's nothing a white man can do that is essential to society that a black man can't. There's nothing an interracial couple can't do that is essential for society that a non-interracial couple can. But there is something that a heterosexual couple can do that is essential to society that a homosexual couple simply can't.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "But there is something that a heterosexual couple can do that is essential to society that a homosexual couple simply can't." I'd say there are mitgating factors involved that even the playing field.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But there is something that a heterosexual couple can do that is essential to society that a homosexual couple simply can't.<< Which, once again opens the can of worms about which marriages are of more "value" to a society -- ones that produce children or ones that don't? It's an ugly argument, and really just a last ditch attempt to grasp onto the thinest of reasons for continuing to discriminate. Happily, such "reasons" for discriminating marriage laws will seem as antiquated as a buggy whip within a generation.
