When would slavery in the Southern States have ended...

Page 13 of 18 [ 276 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 18  Next


When would Slavery have ended, had Lincoln not intervened?
By 1875 10%  10%  [ 5 ]
By 1900 14%  14%  [ 7 ]
By 1925 14%  14%  [ 7 ]
By 1950 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
By 1975 12%  12%  [ 6 ]
By 2000 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
By 2025 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
Never 26%  26%  [ 13 ]
Just show the results 16%  16%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 50

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

18 Jun 2012, 11:37 am

Longshanks wrote:
To begin with the Roman Catholic church is not the sum of all churches either, but you seem to have no problem making it the sum, as I see from this post. Big mistake - it indicates extreme bias.


You have misused the word bias. Anyone who has actually been to law school knows the difference between bias and prejudice. You have used the former when you meant the latter.

My reference to the Roman Catholic church is exemplary, not universal. Taken in context, my whole paragraph demonstrates an understanding that different churches have different attitudes towards marriages. I have taken an analagous type of legal marriage--that between divorced persons with a living former spouse--and demonstrated that a chuch which is dogmatically opposed to this type of legal marriage has never been compelled to celebrate such a marriage. So if the Southern Baptists oppose same-sex marriage, it is reasonable to conclude that no Southern Baptist congregation will ever be compelled to celebrate one. And why should the Southern Baptists opposition stand in the way of, say, the MCC, who would be perfectly happy to celebrate such a marriage, were it legal.

Quote:
Secondly, both the Old and the New Testaments are very plainly spoken when it comes homosexulality - and I'll quote the Apostle Paul on this: "It's an abomination before the Lord." If you have such a cow with that - take it up before God. Nothing I can do about it. I'm not God. Never said I was. But an athiest historian named Edward Gibbon, and many after him have said the same thing: Destroying the traditional family is the quickest way to destroying a great society. The Greeks, Romans, and many others eventually allowed same sex marriage and look what happened to them. History repeats itself. I don't apologize for it. I say it like it is. And I've met a few "former" homosexuals who now have wives and families who will also differ with you on that.


That is your interpretation of a work of fiction. There are others who interpret that work differently.

Why should the law prefer either of those? What place do Moses and Paul have speaking on the question of whether the State gives legal recognition to a marriage between two men or two women?

Quote:
Third, your statistics. I dispute the validity. Name your sources or don't quote them. I've busted more than one set of statistics in my day - they use accountants to do that on occasion. I'd love to bust these.


42% of homeless youth identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual. --Orion Center, Survey of Street Youth, Seattle, WA: Orion Center, 1986. (available at your local library)

8.4 times--How much more likely gay and transgender youth are to attempt suicide if they are rejected by their families in adolescence compared to if they are not rejected by their family.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... mbers.html

Quote:
You state that many people have been hurt by the authority of my church. The Roman Catholic Church is not my church - and again - prove it! I wan't proof - not bunk!


I never said it was. I presented the Roman Catholics as an example of a church who is dogmatically protected from performing marriages that it opposes.

On the other hand I am well aware that you are a Southern Baptist, and I am very clear in levelling a charge of hypocrisy and of wilfully and wantonly causing harm at your Church's leaders.

Quote:
As far as my being disingenous is concerned, I think, sir, you fit that catagory better than I. You see, you have forgotten all of the times that you secular liberals have, expecially by using the legal system, forced your values down our throats. We rely on the Holy Spirit way more than the legal system. You liberals espouse it. Liberal activist judges are overturning public referendums concerning same-sex marriage - MINORITY enforcing it's will over the majority. Yeah, right - what a bunch of psychobabble your response is!

Longshanks


We have used the legal system when people and governments have acted illegally. It isn't a case of forcing our values down your throats, it's a case of standing up for the Rule of Law. Have you been prevented from marrying a person of your choosing? How does any same-sex couple's relationship touch on your freedom to live your life in any way? You can still go to Church, you can still believe that homosexuality is sinful, you can still do everything that you are inclined to do. Yet you would deny this same liberty to your fellow citizens? This isn't merely disingenuous, it's hypocrisy.

No referendum passed by any majority of the citizens of any state is of any force or effect if it violates the United States constitution. This isn't a case of the courts interfering with public will, this a case of the courts enforcing the rule of law. No democracy can ever exist without a system of law that prevents the majority from riding roughshod over the rights of minorities.

The soveriegn is subject to the law, and that applies whether the sovereign is a monarch or the sovereign is the people.


_________________
--James


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Jun 2012, 4:34 pm

Longshanks had brought up the worn out point that homosexuality and same sex marriage had destroyed Greece and Rome. This is a baseless accusation.
First off, in ancient Greece, where homosexuality was a common practice, men still married women in order to produce an heir in order to pass along property. So no gay marriage in existence to allegedly destroy Greek civilization. No, it was Roman expansion into the Hellenized east and North Africa which caused the forced submission of Greek culture.
As for the Roman Empire, with the adoption of Christianity, homosexuality (which has been exaggerated by modern writers among the Romans) was declared illegal, and punishable by death. The fall of the Western Roman Empire was in fact caused by splitting the empire between the east, which was rich in commerce and high culture, and the west, which was much poorer, and made up still largely of agrarian tribal societies. The west ended up being flooded by either Barbarian refugees or prisoners of war who could one day serve as the western Roman army, then the next were often invaders seizing land and gobbling up the empire piece by piece. In the mean time, centralized power in Italy provided less and less services and protection to the provinces, which by necessity caused them to assert more and more independence. No gay marriage around there to overthrow the Romans.
Homosexuality is nothing but a bogeyman wheeled out by the right to explain the collapse of past cultures by saying that said lifestyle is decadent and destructive.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

18 Jun 2012, 4:42 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Longshanks had brought up the worn out point that homosexuality and same sex marriage had destroyed Greece and Rome.


Image


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 Jun 2012, 4:59 pm

Vigilans wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Longshanks had brought up the worn out point that homosexuality and same sex marriage had destroyed Greece and Rome.


Image


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Kjas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,059
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore

18 Jun 2012, 10:45 pm

Most of this thread:

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Image Image Image Image Image

Edit: Thank you to the kind sir who solved my dilemma.


_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html


Last edited by Kjas on 19 Jun 2012, 9:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

19 Jun 2012, 8:52 am

Longshanks wrote:
But an athiest historian named Edward Gibbon,

You seem rather uneducated. Edward Gibbon was a Christian. Plus, you mispelled "atheist." And, even if he were an atheist, what would be the relevance to your point?

Longshanks wrote:
and many after him have said the same thing: Destroying the traditional family is the quickest way to destroying a great society.

Where in blazes did you go to school? Edward Gibbon never said this at all.

Longshanks wrote:
The Greeks, Romans, and many others eventually allowed same sex marriage and look what happened to them. History repeats itself. I don't apologize for it. I say it like it is. And I've met a few "former" homosexuals who now have wives and families who will also differ with you on that.
These things never happened. But even if they did, why would you feel obliged to apologize for it?

Longshanks wrote:
Third, your statistics. I dispute the validity. Name your sources or don't quote them. I've busted more than one set of statistics in my day - they use accountants to do that on occasion. I'd love to bust these.
Would you be glorifying yourself in doing so?

Longshanks wrote:
You state that many people have been hurt by the authority of my church. The Roman Catholic Church is not my church - and again - prove it! I wan't proof - not bunk!

Your church has hurt people through its support of backward politicians.

Longshanks wrote:
As far as my being disingenous is concerned, I think, sir, you fit that catagory better than I. You see, you have forgotten all of the times that you secular liberals have, expecially by using the legal system, forced your values down our throats. We rely on the Holy Spirit way more than the legal system. You liberals espouse it. Liberal activist judges are overturning public referendums concerning same-sex marriage - MINORITY enforcing it's will over the majority. Yeah, right - what a bunch of psychobabble your response is!

Longshanks

Speaking of "a bunch of psychobabble" :roll:



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

19 Jun 2012, 8:57 am

Kjas wrote:
We have no emoticons for facepalming,


Image Image Image Image



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

19 Jun 2012, 1:12 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Longshanks wrote:
As far as my being disingenous is concerned, I think, sir, you fit that catagory better than I. You see, you have forgotten all of the times that you secular liberals have, expecially by using the legal system, forced your values down our throats. We rely on the Holy Spirit way more than the legal system. You liberals espouse it. Liberal activist judges are overturning public referendums concerning same-sex marriage - MINORITY enforcing it's will over the majority. Yeah, right - what a bunch of psychobabble your response is!

Longshanks

Speaking of "a bunch of psychobabble" :roll:


I wonder, does the holy spirit provide legal aid? As a liberal atheist muslim jew socialist college student, I find myself short on capital and need someone to mooch off of; this "holy spirit" sounds pretty swell


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Jun 2012, 2:10 pm

In regard to Longshanks last point regarding how "liberal" judges defy the will of the majority by extending rights to a certain group of Americans - - the simple fact of the matter is, civil rights are sacrosanct, and can not be left up to a majority to decide if an unpopular group can be cast in the role of second class citizens. It must be remembered, civil rights for black Americans and other minorities had come about only through legislation and court rulings - not by popular vote. Civil rights are much too important to leave to the majority, who will often vote out of blind prejudice rather than out of a realization that the rule of law must provide liberty for all Americans.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



SpiritBlooms
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 67
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,024

19 Jun 2012, 3:41 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
In regard to Longshanks last point regarding how "liberal" judges defy the will of the majority by extending rights to a certain group of Americans - - the simple fact of the matter is, civil rights are sacrosanct, and can not be left up to a majority to decide if an unpopular group can be cast in the role of second class citizens. It must be remembered, civil rights for black Americans and other minorities had come about only through legislation and court rulings - not by popular vote. Civil rights are much too important to leave to the majority, who will often vote out of blind prejudice rather than out of a realization that the rule of law must provide liberty for all Americans.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Besides, I don't think rights have ever been extended to one group that weren't already available to others. This was the argument the California courts had against the ban of gay marriage, that it was denying a right others already had to just one group, rather than to everyone, and that the purpose of the Constitution was to guarantee rights rather than to deny them. (If memory serves.)



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Jun 2012, 3:55 pm

SpiritBlooms wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
In regard to Longshanks last point regarding how "liberal" judges defy the will of the majority by extending rights to a certain group of Americans - - the simple fact of the matter is, civil rights are sacrosanct, and can not be left up to a majority to decide if an unpopular group can be cast in the role of second class citizens. It must be remembered, civil rights for black Americans and other minorities had come about only through legislation and court rulings - not by popular vote. Civil rights are much too important to leave to the majority, who will often vote out of blind prejudice rather than out of a realization that the rule of law must provide liberty for all Americans.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Besides, I don't think rights have ever been extended to one group that weren't already available to others. This was the argument the California courts had against the ban of gay marriage, that it was denying a right others already had to just one group, rather than to everyone, and that the purpose of the Constitution was to guarantee rights rather than to deny them. (If memory serves.)


Here in Washington where gay marriage was legalized by the state legislature, the local troglodytes have gathered enough signature on a petition to put it up to a popular vote. I like to think that if gay marriage is voted down, the courts will still uphold the legislature's decision, citing the California case.
Then again, maybe Washington will be the first state to pass gay marriage by popular vote. :D

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

19 Jun 2012, 4:02 pm

In some states, such as Mississippi and North Carolina, where the majority of the people were slaves, it was indeed the case where the minority of people were pushing their ideas down the throats of the majority.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

19 Jun 2012, 4:12 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
In some states, such as Mississippi and North Carolina, where the majority of the people were slaves, it was indeed the case where the minority of people were pushing their ideas down the throats of the majority.


Why would you say such a thing, that is simply un-American


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

19 Jun 2012, 4:22 pm

SpiritBlooms wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
In regard to Longshanks last point regarding how "liberal" judges defy the will of the majority by extending rights to a certain group of Americans - - the simple fact of the matter is, civil rights are sacrosanct, and can not be left up to a majority to decide if an unpopular group can be cast in the role of second class citizens. It must be remembered, civil rights for black Americans and other minorities had come about only through legislation and court rulings - not by popular vote. Civil rights are much too important to leave to the majority, who will often vote out of blind prejudice rather than out of a realization that the rule of law must provide liberty for all Americans.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Besides, I don't think rights have ever been extended to one group that weren't already available to others. This was the argument the California courts had against the ban of gay marriage, that it was denying a right others already had to just one group, rather than to everyone, and that the purpose of the Constitution was to guarantee rights rather than to deny them. (If memory serves.)


No, the courts actually denied people their Constitutional Rights. Marriage is a religious issue, not simply a state issue. Furthermore, where does this end, do we allow polygamy next? How about bestilly (or however you spell it), or worse, where does it end.

If you looked at Greek culture, Homosexual behavior was practiced in a manner that we see Sandusky currently on trial for. That behavior was accepted in Ancient Greece.

The Romans thought it was okay to amuse themselves using their slaves, even when Christianity had taken hold, this kind of behavior continued in the dark.

So if we want to be like the Greeks or the Romans, should pedophillia be legalized? How about slavery?

Just because something is seen in the past, doesn't mean it should be practiced, some things should not be seen ever again.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

19 Jun 2012, 4:37 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
No, the courts actually denied people their Constitutional Rights.

The right to prevent others from marrying is not in the Constitution.

Inuyasha wrote:
Marriage is a religious issue, not simply a state issue.

Nope. It is a state issue. State laws determine who may and may not marry.

Inuyasha wrote:
Furthermore, where does this end, do we allow polygamy next?

It is in the Bible.

Inuyasha wrote:
How about bestilly (or however you spell it), or worse, where does it end.

In your little behind.

Inuyasha wrote:
If you looked at Greek culture, Homosexual behavior was practiced in a manner that we see Sandusky currently on trial for. That behavior was accepted in Ancient Greece.

Yes.

Inuyasha wrote:
The Romans thought it was okay to amuse themselves using their slaves, even when Christianity had taken hold, this kind of behavior continued in the dark.

Sometimes with candlelight.

Inuyasha wrote:
So if we want to be like the Greeks or the Romans, should pedophillia be legalized? How about slavery?

The old slippery slope argument. How about if we just wear togas, and discuss philosophy in a forum?

Inuyasha wrote:
Just because something is seen in the past, doesn't mean it should be practiced, some things should not be seen ever again.

Homosexual marriage is actually something new.



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,512
Location: Over there

19 Jun 2012, 4:48 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
No, the courts actually denied people their Constitutional Rights. Marriage is a religious issue, not simply a state issue. Furthermore, where does this end, do we allow polygamy next? How about bestilly (or however you spell it), or worse, where does it end.
Wow, that takes me back to those happy, happy days of that thread... what was it now? The slippery slope fallacy or something like that?
Ah yes: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt172439.html

I'm surprised that drum of yours hasn't fallen apart yet.
Also, we appear to have entered a time warp.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.