Bush Battles The Gays

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-06 08:09pm

Iceberg wrote: That was in 1948, dumbfuck.

And where were they by the 60s? That's right, they were in the Republican party.

So where did the American Independent Party come from in '68 and '72, hrmm? Do you think that the party of George Wallace was tapping into anything other than traditional Dixiecrat sympathies?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-06 08:21pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Marina, desegregation was against the "will of society" and there were even states who had laws against white and non-white people marrying. Then some "activist judges" said the whole thing was rotten, caused desegregation, and had all those laws repealed; despite large amounts of resistance and civil unrest. You could make the same argument there. The majority of people in America used to think that "colored" people should have seperate water fountains and schools, therefore the state shouldn't make the practice illegal.

It wasn't against the will of the country's society; it was against the will of the South--which has a subculture, I grant, but is not really distinct from the rest of the nation now, nor was then. There was no popular backlash in most of America, not until busing, which came around later on. I will note that a fair number of modern black leaders have come forward to contend that busing actually hurt the black community by gutting the traditionally black schools in many areas which had actually started to foster the beginnings of a quite successful black middle class, and by encouraging wealthier black families to move out of black communities, ripping the top off the social structure of those communities.

Integration has still happened, but some argue it has taken longer because of the rather violent way in which it was accomplished, and has harmed the conditions in which the average black individual is raised. After the passage of the civil rights act and the actual laws dealing with desegregation, it might have been wise to let the process happen on its own (enforcing the established laws on a case-by-case basis) rather than engage in massive government efforts.

Essentially, you can't end racism in a decade, is what I'm arguing--the attitudes are going to linger, even if much reduced. And if you drive something hard enough, you reach a point where you can't go and where it isn't wise, probably, for the government to go in the first place. And the gay rights movement has done the exact same thing here. They have pushed to hard, to fast, and they're generating a backlash from it. People have accepted homosexuals and have accepted homosexuality as normal in society for the most part; but some aspects of life they cannot accept giving to homosexuals yet. If we had just been willing to wait another few decades those attitudes might have been dead as older people die and younger generations grow up who find the current situation normal and the rights denied to a minority intolerable.

Instead, the whole activist movement shows an utter lack of patience in this country, and always has, and they are destroying their own achievements through it. That is one of the principle reasons I am right-leaning in most of my politics; it is not that I want progress, it is that I think that progress in a society is something that cannot be done overnight and that liberals seem to think this is entirely possible, especially when you use a large government stick; which if anything is just incompetent and makes it worse.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-06 08:22pm

Andrew J. wrote: You know what? Fuck the will of society! If they don't like it we'll just impose it on them until the motherfuckers get used to it.

I'm sure the Shah of Iran thought he could do that, too.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-02-06 08:29pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Andrew J. wrote: You know what? Fuck the will of society! If they don't like it we'll just impose it on them until the motherfuckers get used to it.
I'm sure the Shah of Iran thought he could do that, too.

If you think that analogy is even remotely valid, then I'm sorry, because you're no longer the person that I used to respect and to some extent admire, and that, frankly, is a crying shame.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-06 08:49pm

Iceberg wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote: I'm sure the Shah of Iran thought he could do that, too.
If you think that analogy is even remotely valid, then I'm sorry, because you're no longer the person that I used to respect and to some extent admire, and that, frankly, is a crying shame.

What does that have to do with the validity of the analogy? Hrmm.. There's some fallacy I'm trying to think of, here..

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-02-06 08:51pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Iceberg wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote: I'm sure the Shah of Iran thought he could do that, too.
If you think that analogy is even remotely valid, then I'm sorry, because you're no longer the person that I used to respect and to some extent admire, and that, frankly, is a crying shame.
What does that have to do with the validity of the analogy? Hrmm.. There's some fallacy I'm trying to think of, here..

Do you honestly think he owes you a scholarly response when you say something so outlandish?

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » 2004-02-06 09:17pm

Its good to see that Bush doesn't have anything better to do than to get involved in what two consenting people do with each other.

I've never understood what the big deal is. If two people want to marry each other, let them. Whether they're gay or not is irrelevent (at least to me).

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-06 09:33pm

Hamel wrote: Do you honestly think he owes you a scholarly response when you say something so outlandish?

It's a demonstrated occurence of a conservative reaction in a country pushed forward into modernizing influences to quickly. The main difference in the USA is the scale of the change; logically one can infer that the scale of the reaction will thus be smaller. However, using the scale to refute the propisition is a bit silly, like claiming boats won't float because you've only seen ships floating. There are of course examples of less severe conservative reactions due to less severe events, in other countries; but forgive me if I chose something dramatic in response to comments which were ridiculous and fascistic in nature.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-02-06 10:27pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Andrew J. wrote: You know what? Fuck the will of society! If they don't like it we'll just impose it on them until the motherfuckers get used to it.
I'm sure the Shah of Iran thought he could do that, too.

And he would have, if he hadn't been such an ass about it. My plan doesn't involve tons of corruption, unnecessary violence, or any secret police.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-02-06 10:49pm

Joe wrote:
Iceberg wrote:
Joe wrote:They didn't become Republicans, you stupid twat, they went out and formed their own fucking party, the Dixiecrats.
That was in 1948, dumbfuck.

And where were they by the 60s? That's right, they were in the Republican party.
You were the one who brought up 1948, retard.

And I don't recall Robert Byrd, who voted against the Civil Rights Act, ever bolting to the Republicans (80 percent of whom, by the way, voted for the Civil Rights Act, compared to 60 percent of the Dems).

As of yet, Senator Byrd has made no comments for or against Gay Marriages. If he had, it'd have been all over the WV Newspapers.
But the Ol' Byrd's a bit to canny to step into that quicksand.