Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <John Bell was himself a slave owner and his Congressional record with fill with pro slavery legislation.> Bell was opposed to the Lecompton constitution, which would have allowed Kansas to enter the Union as a slave state. While he was not aggressively anti-slavery, he was also not pro slavery. <Stephen Douglas was in favor of giving people of the states or territories the right to decide for themselves (popular sovereignty). Not much of an indictment against slavery.> Like Bell, Douglas opposed the Lecompton constitution, so he does not seem to be pro-slavery. If Douglas had been pro-slavery, southern democrats would not have felt the need to elected a pro-slavery candidate. Of the four candidates, the one most opposed to slavery won the largest percentage of the popular vote, and the one most in favor of slavery won the smallest percentage of the popular vote. It certainly doesn't back up the idea that the majority of Americans were in favor of slavery.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Read my posts Douglas as I believe Pass meant that the LEGAl arguments were solved according to his post 68.> I read your posts. Since I didn't make any legal arguments, I don't think that's what Pass meant.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Many times your obtuseness veers head on into dishonesty.> And once again your failure to be able to argue with facts leads you to make personal attacks.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Pass "I know for a fact the courts don't. That's his legal argument I though Douglas as I am sure he has the documentation to back it up.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe night night and keep it going but I hope I wake up at 3 to someone addressing the moral and religious questions as I had suggested?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "And once again your failure to be able to argue with facts leads you to make personal attacks." Hardly. If you split any more hairs on this subject, you'd win some sort of prize.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo I think what is happening here is that our definitions of “opposed to slavery†and “pro-slavery†are incongruent. Both Bell and Douglas opposed the Lecompton because both believed in popular sovereignty which called for the people of each state to determine whether they wanted slavery to be legal in their respective states. The Lecompton offered no popular provision allowing the citizen to decide. I do not see how this is in opposition to slavery as both felt slavery was fine so long as the people of each state was in favor of it. Interestingly the same sort of argument many conservatives use for gay marriage (see post #2). Again, Bell was a slave owner from Tennessee and never once proposed a bill outlawing slavery in that state; likewise, every Congressional effort to outlaw slavery nationally was opposed by him. Again, this whole topic is based on the assumption that Americans wanted to get rid of slavery when in fact, at least 60% were either pro or popularists.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> STP: So they adopt, problem solved. CCJ: Legally Pass, but NOT the overwhelmingly more important moral and religious problems to gay marriage. << Feel free to elaborate on the overwhelmingly more important moral and religious problems to gay marriage. Because I think you're right. The reason that eighty-something percent of Georgians voted for this ban is good old fashioned bigotry and discrimination. And a hefty dollop of fear and ignorance, topped off with religious zealotry. People are taught that gays and lesbians are beneath contempt, are weak, are promiscuous, are godless, are disease carrying "sinners", and worthy of scorn and derision. Remember the pope himself took time out from performing the stations of the cross this past good friday to give a press statement about gays being "evil". This kind of loathing trumps the constitution. It's no longer about equality, it's now become about active suppression of equal rights. But that's okay because churches and religious leaders say it is. And this is why the courts and judges are involved in the process. They understand what the crackers and hayseeds don't - that the constitution applies equally to all of us, even the ones we don't like. And this is why gay marriage is an inevitability, and why it will come from the courts, not the public. You don't like it? Take it up with the founding fathers.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I do not see how this is in opposition to slavery as both felt slavery was fine so long as the people of each state was in favor of it.> And I do not see how that view can be called support of slavery, as I have stated before. What happened with slavery simply has no bearing on what might happen with recognition of gay marriage. <Again, this whole topic is based on the assumption that Americans wanted to get rid of slavery when in fact, at least 60% were either pro or popularists.> This topic is being discussed because it was asserted that Americans supported slavery when in fact, at least 80% were either antislavery or popularists.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<And I do not see how that view can be called support of slavery, as I have stated before.>> Because both Bell and Douglas supported the institution of slavery to so long as the people desired it. Your definition of pro-slavery seems to be more less a laissez faire opinion that slavery is okay in every circumstance. I do not. I believe that a pro-slavery advocate is someone who is supports slavery whether it is in their state or someone else’s. To illustrate, take the abortion issue. Many “pro- abortion†advocates believe that people should be legalized everywhere. But is that all it takes to be “pro-abortion� Can’t “pro-abortionists†be also those who advocate popular state sovereignty; that each state could decide whether abortion would be legalized there? Of course it can, which is why I deem both circumstances pro-abortion (or choice). In the same manner, I consider Bell and Douglas pro-slavery. <<This topic is being discussed because it was asserted that Americans supported slavery when in fact, at least 80% were either antislavery or popularists.>> No it wasn’t. It derived from the comment: “Also, the American people are good people. They knew slavery was wrong so they got rid of it.†Taken into context with the topic, the implication was that the American people got rid of it by popular appeal. This was poppycock, because the majority of Americans were either pro- slavery, or believed states had the right to choose. This is a far cry for getting rid of it. It was the Republican administration which imposed abolition upon the nation (and thank God for Lincoln and the Radicals in Congress).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Can’t “pro-abortionists†be also those who advocate popular state sovereignty; that each state could decide whether abortion would be legalized there?> That certainly doesn't seem to be the case. It seems more likely that people who advocate leaving the choice up to the states (i.e. overturning Roe v. Wade) are considered anti-abortionists. <This was poppycock, because the majority of Americans were either pro- slavery, or believed states had the right to choose.> Again, less than 20% of the 1860 popular vote went to the pro-slavery candidate. The majority of Americans were anti-slavery, or believed states had the right to choose. <It was the Republican administration which imposed abolition upon the nation (and thank God for Lincoln and the Radicals in Congress).> If that was an unpopular decision, it could have been overturned, sort of like the way Georgia passed a law to protect marriage for overactive judges.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<That certainly doesn't seem to be the case.>> And who is the arbiter of that rule? <<Again, less than 20% of the 1860 popular vote went to the pro-slavery candidate. The majority of Americans were anti-slavery, or believed states had the right to choose.>> Tomato/ tomato. This argument has become nothing but semantics. Until we come to a reasonable agreement as to how we define our terms, pro-slavery, et al… there is no use rehashing this further. <<If that was an unpopular decision, it could have been overturned, sort of like the way Georgia passed a law to protect marriage for overactive judges.>> Do you really think the abolitionist dominated Supreme Court would have overruled it? Not likely. Besides, the lion share of those who would have been most affected--the Confederate States--had no elected representation for several years after the war and popularists in the north had nothing to gain by it considering theirs states had already banned slavery. In essence, oh well. But that does not mean they were against it per se, nor for it. This again, goes back to whether the American populace went about actively seeking to end slavery, the answer is a resounding NO.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Blacks did not have the unrestricted right to vote until 100 years after the end of the civil war. Sure, on paper they had the right. But violence against black voters, poll taxes, literacy test, etc. effectively kept most southern blacks from voting until Federal legislation was passed in 1963-64 ensuring the right of blacks to vote. Split hairs all you want. White America spent 100 years after the end of the Civil War trying to keep black people from exercising basic rights. How dare anyone claim that the "goodness of the American people" provided blacks with their release from slavery and later with their civil rights. Without "activist" legislators, judges and presidents it would have never happened.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And who is the arbiter of that rule?> It's not a rule. It's a reaction that I have observed. <This argument has become nothing but semantics.> Actually, I think it started out that way. <Until we come to a reasonable agreement as to how we define our terms, pro-slavery, et al… there is no use rehashing this further.> I agree. <Do you really think the abolitionist dominated Supreme Court would have overruled it?> I never said they would. I was referring to the amendment process. But your question raises an interesting one: How did the Supreme Court become dominated by abolitionists if abolitionists were a minority of the population? <This again, goes back to whether the American populace went about actively seeking to end slavery, the answer is a resounding NO.> And the answer to the question did the American populace actively support slavery, is also a resounding NO. So, as I said earlier, it really has no bearing on a discussion of whether gay marriages should be legally recognized.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Without "activist" legislators, judges and presidents it would have never happened.> Nor would it have happened if it was against the will of the majority of the American people.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<It's a reaction that I have observed.>> Are all reactions correct? <<Actually, I think it started out that way.>> Actually, it wasn’t until we refused to mutually settle on a definition that it became such a semantic mess. Socrates was a very smart man. <<How did the Supreme Court become dominated by abolitionists if abolitionists were a minority of the population?>> They are not elected officials. Also, there were 6 new Justices appointed and sworn in between 1862 and 1864…all by an abolitionist administration. Do you really think there was a chance for a pro-slavery challenge to the 13th Amendment? Not likely. <<And the answer to the question did the American populace actively support slavery, is also a resounding NO.>> Using your definitions, you can believe whatever you want. It doesn’t mean anyone else is any less correct, other than in your mind of course. But then does anything else REALLY matter? <<Nor would it have happened if it was against the will of the majority of the American people.>> But it did happen…using my definition of pro-slavery. Of course you will say this is incorrect using your definition, and then I will say.....
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Nor would it have happened if it was against the will of the majority of the American people." And therein lies the point of bringing up slavery. No matter what your opinion is, a majority of Americans were still in favor of it when the slaves were freed. Had it been put to a vote instead of the Emancipation Proclamation, they would not have been freed. The will of the people "lost". Same with a ban on gay marriage. Despite the will of the people, it's unconstitutional and has yet to survive a court challenge, save for Gavin Newsom's misguided attempt, which should have been struck down. Just because a majority of people want it doesn't make it so. And I'll bring up segregation again, and interestingly, no one denied it. If it were put to a vote in southern states today, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see more than a few states vote for it. Does that mean it stays? Of course not.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I have a question. Why do gay people want to get married? Why is this so important to them? Why isn't a civil union type arrangment good enough?
