Is life over for gays in america?

[HotBulge]

Clearly you were either asleep and/or failed your US history/civics classes in school.

You also want to be VERY careful about using the logic of "majority rule". There are many large cities - Los Angeles, NYC
,ie. the "minorithy-majority" cities - where the non-whites collectively outnumber the Whites. By your logic, you better hope and pray that the non-whites don't collectively decide to legislate discrimination against Whites by virtue of the numbers of non-Whites. The minority-majority phenomenon is and will be the demographic reality of the US in the 21st Century ... Be warned!

And the majority does have the right to rule because the can enforce their rule. That's what justice comes down to eventually, being able to enforce your rules. Those who say they don't lack the power to challenge such a rule.

 

[deleted37010]

And the majority does have the right to rule because the can enforce their rule. That's what justice comes down to eventually, being able to enforce your rules.

this seems logical at face value..... and literally true.... except in the US.....perhaps the person citing this ideology is unable to understand

Majority Rule Versus Minority Rights
The American system is one of majority rule with minority rights: everyday laws pass with a simple majority vote, but certain fundamental rights protected by the Bill of Rights are not subject to the wishes of the majority. In such a system, an independent judiciary, not subject to the political pressures of elections, is especially important. The U.S. Constitution creates a judicial branch that serves for life, and its job is to protect the rights of the minority. Thomas Jefferson believed that independent judges were the key to making a bill of rights more than a mere “parchment barrier” to the will of the majority. When protected by an independent judiciary, constitutional rights offered a safe haven from the shifting tides of political opinion.

http://www.pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usa-peter-sagal/rights/

 

[winesthel945]

And the majority does have the right to rule because the can enforce their rule. That's what justice comes down to eventually, being able to enforce your rules. Those who say they don't lack the power to challenge such a rule.

You are confusing power and justice. Might doesn't make right; power does not equal justice.

American democracy is built on checks on the power of the majority. The entire Constitution is an exercise in ensuring that majorities don't get to ride rough-shod over minorities. And occasionally there's had to be blood in the streets to remind us that while power may be used to enforce illegitimate ends, it comes at a cost.

This thread asks the question: is life over for gays in America? It may not be over, though for those killed by bigots, it quite literally is over. But as long as people have the strength to fight, it won't be over. And for those who think it's not their problem, well... that is part of the problem.

 

[HotBulge]

AMEN.

You are confusing power and justice. Might doesn't make right; power does not equal justice.
.

 

[Titanomachina]

AMEN.

It's the same thing. Justice is defined by the hand that wields it and that is based on the ability of that hand to enforce punishment for disobedience. Otherwise all you have are words with nothing to back them up.

 

[Titanomachina]

Clearly you were either asleep and/or failed your US history/civics classes in school.

You also want to be VERY careful about using the logic of "majority rule". There are many large cities - Los Angeles, NYC
,ie. the "minorithy-majority" cities - where the non-whites collectively outnumber the Whites. By your logic, you better hope and pray that the non-whites don't collectively decide to legislate discrimination against Whites by virtue of the numbers of non-Whites. The minority-majority phenomenon is and will be the demographic reality of the US in the 21st Century ... Be warned!

That's exactly what I hope for. But US history pales in comparission to the actual insight into just and morality, which is far more gray and convoluted then government makes it seem.

 

[deleted37010]

You are confusing power and justice. Might doesn't make right; power does not equal justice.

god forgive me for siding with ms. mary.... who stated

And the majority does have the right to rule because the can enforce their rule. That's what justice comes down to eventually, being able to enforce your rules.

excluding our abstract and nuanced view of minority rights...
across the world and throughout history... ms. mary is literally correct (imo)
history has shown us that the majority often does what it wants... makes and enforces whatever rules it desires... because it can... in this conceptualization of reality might defines right... and forces those it oppresses to accept its definitions....intentionally excluding ideas like equal justice

if a person were imprisoned in a concrete way of thinking... devoid of abstract concepts like right and justice.....the notion of majority rule would seem logical and true...
a person... like.....ms. mary... perhaps?

 

[Titanomachina]

You are presenting a FALSE dichotomy. It's not a choice between EITHER the environment OR the Civil Rights. It's a both/and : and you can safely bet that the Trump administration will attempt to both weaken environmental protections and roll back Civil Rights.

Again, the US Constitution - the 14th Amendment, in particular - states that all law abiding citizens deserve EQUAL protection under the law -- not just when it's convenient for someone to get around to it. A rational government should not be complicit to or passive in the harm of citizens that it claims to represent!

Also, please don't treat us as monolithic beings. The LGBT can simultaneously care about its rights, as well as environmental protections, as well as women's rights, protecting the Civil Rights of religious minorities like Muslim Americans, etc.

It's more like a division of resources. I'd rather expend them on a far more serious problem rather than your ability to marry or not (which is trivial). Better to work towards the issue that is going to be EVERYONE'S problem rather than something that effects a few.

 

[umdoistressilvaquatro]

You fail to grasp the scope of our problems. Trump hiring someone who believes global warming is a myth is a problem, who can very well silence all data that contradicts that view (so much so that a university has created a repository to keep this info safe). Not to mention Trump believing it's a Chinese conspiracy. The civil rights isn't a problem, that can wait.

I thought you said (albeit deleted the post) that you never been hapeir than when Trump got elected, because it shattered the dreams of progressives. And you are implying now that it's the pro-civil rights folk who have fucked-up priorities.

 

[Titanomachina]

god forgive me for siding with ms. mary.... who stated

excluding our abstract and nuanced view of minority rights...
across the world and throughout history... ms. mary is literally correct (imo)
history has shown us that the majority often does what it wants... makes and enforces whatever rules it desires... because it can... in this conceptualization of reality might defines right... and forces those it oppresses to accept its definitions....intentionally excluding ideas like equal justice

if a person were imprisoned in a concrete way of thinking... devoid of abstract concepts like right and justice.....the notion of majority rule would seem logical and true...
a person... like.....ms. mary... perhaps?

Because when you get down to it, right and justice aren't concrete and clearly defined. It's not devoid of those concepts, but recognizing that they aren't as clear as people believe. Society gets along by making people conform and punishing those who don't. So in a sense might makes right. No one wants to hear it, but it's hard to argue against a greater power.

 

[umdoistressilvaquatro]

See I hear that, and it never applies to reality.

You do know that Niemöller's poem refers to a reality he lived through, right?

 

[Titanomachina]

I thought you said (albeit deleted the post) that you never been hapeir than when Trump got elected, because it shattered the dreams of progressives. And you are implying now that it's the pro-civil rights folk who have fucked-up priorities.

Because civil rights is a drop in the bucket compared to maintaining the only inhabitable planet we have access to.

 

[Titanomachina]

You do know that Niemöller's poem refers to a reality he lived through, right?

You do know that anecdotes aren't data right?

 

[deleted37010]

You do know that anecdotes aren't data right?

you do know that reality isn't data, right?

 

[Titanomachina]

you do know that reality isn't data, right?

Actually it is.

 

[deleted37010]

Actually it is.

no... that is a subjective interpretation of reality.... masquerading as objective.....and particular to the reality you are experiencing/defining (attempting to define with data points)..... presuming the totality of reality is being experienced......a need to make reality concrete and quantifiable as a data point

reality must exist outside/beyond our current and very limited understanding of it... and it is reality nonetheless
consciousness is not quantifiable as a data point ;-)

 

[HotBulge]

Point #1. Fortunately for you and for White America, contrary to historical perceptions in some cases, people of color - Black Americans in particular - aren't plotting revenge. Black Americans talk extensively about Social Justice, but the vast majority do not talk about revenge.

Point #2. Again, fortunately for you and me, the law of the land is the US Constitution - not some philosophical conflation of Power with Justice. As US citizens we both have certain inalienable rights and equal protection under the law. As long as the US Constitution is there to uphold your rights and mine, we can co-exist rationally and in harmony.

Point #3. There are more diplomatic ways to express your views without being inflammatory. Several days/posts ago, you could have stated your opinion more succinctly and without negative feedback in the following way: "The Trump administration may represent a threat to the LGBT community, but I don't think you his top priority is to act against the LGBT community. Trump has vowed to repeal Obamacare on day 1 and has climate change denying cabinet officials who are threatening to roll back environmental protections and reverse international treaties. I am very concerned about those actions...." If you have expressed your position more diplomatically, most people would have graciously acknowledged your viewpoint as you acknowledged theirs. Instead, you labelled us as "hysterics", invalidated the experiences other than your own (despite copious contrary evidence to support our concerns about Trump's anti-LGBT cabinet members), and demonstrated arrogance, willful ignorance and immaturity. You may want rethink your strategy on how to influence others and to speak persuasively.

That's exactly what I hope for. But US history pales in comparission to the actual insight into just and morality, which is far more gray and convoluted then government makes it seem.

 

[Titanomachina]

no... that is a subjective interpretation of reality.... masquerading as objective.....and particular to the reality you are experiencing/defining (attempting to define with data points)..... presuming the totality of reality is being experienced......a need to make reality concrete and quantifiable as a data point

reality must exist outside/beyond our current and very limited understanding of it... and it is reality nonetheless
consciousness is not quantifiable as a data point ;-)

Actually it is quantifiable as a data point. Granted we don't experience reality objectively but in regards to humans version of it we can compile data and test it repeatedly in order to find commonalities. This is why we have science. Granted it can only prove what is not, but it has shown that our senses prevent us from experiencing reality objectively. Data is information that can be used and that includes our flawed perception of what "is".

If you want to get really technical reality doesn't have to exist outside of us, and ironically we can't prove reality itself to be real. It could all be a dream. But such a view isn't productive at all.

Please come back with something more than intro philosophy.

 

[Titanomachina]

Point #1. Fortunately for you and for White America, contrary to historical perceptions in some cases, people of color - Black Americans in particular - aren't plotting revenge. Black Americans talk extensively about Social Justice, but the vast majority do not talk about revenge.

Point #2. Again, fortunately for you and me, the law of the land is the US Constitution - not some philosophical conflation of Power with Justice. As US citizens we both have certain inalienable rights and equal protection under the law. As long as the US Constitution is there to uphold your rights and mine, we can co-exist rationally and in harmony.

Point #3. There are more diplomatic ways to express your views without being inflammatory. Several days/posts ago, you could have stated your opinion more succinctly and without negative feedback in the following way: "The Trump administration may represent a threat to the LGBT community, but I don't think you his top priority is to act against the LGBT community. Trump has vowed to repeal Obamacare on day 1 and has climate change denying cabinet officials who are threatening to roll back environmental protections and reverse international treaties. I am very concerned about those actions...." If you have expressed your position more diplomatically, most people would have graciously acknowledged your viewpoint as you acknowledged theirs. Instead, you labelled us as "hysterics", invalidated the experiences other than your own (despite copious contrary evidence to support our concerns about Trump's anti-LGBT cabinet members), and demonstrated arrogance, willful ignorance and immaturity. You may want rethink your strategy on how to influence others and to speak persuasively.

Your points don't address mine at all, but I expected that.

I find diplomacy doesn't get to the heart of an issue and simply beats around the bush. And the constitution doesn't hold up when exposed to rigorous philosophical inquiry (a good thing for the masses).

I'll label anyone hytserical if I want when they blow up over what might happen. Not to mention focusing on small issues instead of ones that affect humanity's ability to live on the planet. Civil rights can be fixed any time, but environmental issues can't. The longer it takes the worse off we will be, and no law will save us at that point.

 

[HotBulge]

Again, you are presenting a false dichotomy between environmental protections and the protections of Marriage Equality. It's a both/and: Trump Republicans are acting to both hinder/roll back environmental protections as well as discriminate against the LGBT community. The Trump's administration first move on Day #1 probably won't be to roll back LGBT rights, but they have at least 4 years to put discriminatory policies on their legislative and executive agenda. We can both care about the environment as well as care about Civil Rights when they are both being threatened.

Again, you are committing the fallacy: " I [Tiitanomachina] don't relate to a problem, therefore the problem does not exist or is irrelevant". As I wrote earlier, Marriage Equality wasn't about holding hands and skipping down the isle. The movement for Marriage Equality was about securing very real protections with life altering consequences,( which straight couples take for granted), such as:

• Gay couples being able to visit their loved ones on their deathbed and make decisions as Power of Attorney. Before Marriage Equality, a LGBT couple would have to spend $$ thousands on the legal documents to designate the "Power of Attorney".
• Being able to inherit a spouse's property and retirement benefits without being subject to inheritance tax. Before Marriage Equality, LGBT couples again would need to spend $$ thousands on establishing legal trust to effectively skirt around inheritance taxes; straight couples, in general, would be automatically protected by marriage.
• Establishing families and child custody rights. Again, before Marriage Equality, LGBT couples would to pay $$ on surrogacy to conceive children or on adoption. In addition, the non-biological or secondary parent would have to legally adopt the children of the primary parent. Even then, custody rights might not be recognized in different states. The last time I checked, adoptions cost ~ $10K .
• Before marriage equality, it was estimated that LGBT couples can spend between $60K - $240K on average in additional costs over a life time just to approximate the protections which straight couples take advantage of for free. Gays and lesbians shouldn't have to pay tens of thousands of additional dollars to approximate the same legal protections of straight couples -- and even then without a definite guarantee of protection depending on the variations in laws among states.

As for "division of resources", the movement for LGBT protections and Marriage Equality didn't cost you nor the taxpayer a dime, other than lawsuits against state governments and the Federal government of the USA. Private LGBT organizations, such as HRC and GLAD, raised the millions of dollars from its LGBT members to support the lawyers who successfully sued for LGBT protections and argued Marriage Equality before the Supreme Court. Over the past 10 years, I have personally donated $2500(+) per year - contributing $200+ on a monthly basis - to GLAD, the organization whose lawyers successfully argued Marriage Equality before the Supreme Court. As far as "inconvenience" to the taxpayer, the only change states had to make was to change their marriage certificates from saying "man and wife" to "spouse and spouse". So, don't throw up the BULLSHIT about resources when the private sector - the LGBT community in particular - has reached deep into their pockets and/or marched to advocate their own interests!

It's more like a division of resources. I'd rather expend them on a far more serious problem rather than your ability to marry or not (which is trivial). Better to work towards the issue that is going to be EVERYONE'S problem rather than something that effects a few.