The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

So, what I'd say is, opposition to gay marriage is homophobic.

See, joe, you just have to ask Kepler and he'll tell you who and what you are. Don't bother yourself, they'll save you the trouble. They will define you, whether you like it or not.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

See, joe, you just have to ask Kepler and he'll tell you who and what you are. Don't bother yourself, they'll save you the trouble. They will define you, whether you like it or not.

You didn't even read my post, I see. The post that goes on (and on) to say the exact opposite.

Great job, Bob.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

You didn't even read my post, I see. The post that goes on (and on) to say the exact opposite.

Great job, Bob.

I read the post and you do have some nuance in it, but in the end you say that you define people as homophobic who oppose gay marriage. You are simply wrong, but I doubt you will ever grasp it. Glossing over with the other stuff doesn't change the fact that you're erroneously defining lots of people. The rubbish about becoming more hateful by the day is nonsense and is on those who push it and harass any who don't endorse it.

It's like me saying you're a Christian hater who wants to mistreat us in all sorts of ways, but there's some nuance behind it. The up front defining undermines your attempts to then nuance the situation. You lose people at the get go when you wrongly define people in a very bad way.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I read the post and you do have some nuance in it, but in the end you say that you define people as homophobic who oppose gay marriage.

No I don't. What I wrote was that, in the end, opposition to gay marriage now, in this social context, is homophobic, and people who are newly minted now would be homophobic to hold that view, but we also have (or are) "legacy people" whose opinions were formed in a very different world in which gay marriage was literally "unthinkable." Opposition to gay marriage then did not constitute homophobia -- it was meaningless, like opposing unicorn marriage.

Let me give an example. Lincoln favored deporting the blacks back to Africa, or so I've been told -- that might be one of those myths, but let's assume arguendo that he did. In my opinion, that does not make Lincoln a racist. If somebody born in 1963 thought that... yeah, they'd be a racist. We can only be evaluated in terms of the time in which we were formed. Ideally, we keep an open mind and our opinions do change over time as we learn more and our surroundings change and we emerge from the parochialism of our upbringing, but like the very nice grandma who uses the N word, there are plenty of good people who hold obsolete opinions.

tl; dr: what I said was, I think it's possible for someone to hold a bigoted opinion without being a bigot.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

You lose people at the get go when you wrongly define people in a very bad way.

That's your reaction and obviously I can't argue with what I said meant for you. What I meant to do was exactly the opposite of what you're accusing me of doing -- I was trying to separate "y is an x-ist" from "y holds a viewpoint which is x-ist." If a lot of people react the way you did, I failed in what I was trying to do.

I think you may be primarily reacting against my characterization of opposition to gay marriage as homophobic. I don't see any way around that disagreement -- in my opinion it is a homophobic viewpoint, with all that's happened in public discourse since the 70's to educate people and disabuse them of their prejudices.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

It's not homophobic there's just no other reasons to oppose it. Not even God instructs us to get in the way.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

So back to this raisin business, what exactly did Sotomayor believe? That the government has every right to take those raisins without compensation because why?

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Pandora's Boxes will be dealt with the by adults who have to pick up the pieces and try to make yet another burst of social engineering work. The folks who push stuff rarely think about such details.

Ladies and Gentlemen: Mind will close in 15 minutes, and any people who are not either existing customers or in the store at that time will be classified as "Pandora's Box" or "Slippery Slope" and denied future service .

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

So back to this raisin business, what exactly did Sotomayor believe? That the government has every right to take those raisins without compensation because why?

Well, here's her first paragraph.

The Hornes claim, and the Court agrees, that the Raisin Marketing Order, 7 CFR pt. 989 (2015) (hereinafter Order), effects a per se taking under our decision in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419 (1982). But Loretto sets a high bar for such claims: It requires that each and every property right be destroyed by governmental action before that action can be said to have effected a per se taking. Because the Order does not deprive the Hornes of all of their property rights, it does not effect a per se taking. I respectfully dissent from the Court’s contrary holding.

 

[joecct]

Well, here's her first paragraph.

Sour grapes?

 

[alfablue]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Otherwise I am afraid that Pandora's box has been opened and every form of marriage will be legal as long as the plaintiffs can make a 14th Amendment case.

How will that open Pandora's box?

All the 14th Amendment claims do is that you can't not restrict marriage based on who you are. That does say that a person can marry more than one person- since that's not part of the 14th. Nor does it say that you can marry anything you want- it gives rights to people- not things or pets. Nor does it say that you can't restrict age. Seems like the only thing that remotely could be challenged via the 14th is the law against marrying close relatives.

As for the social engineering comment- who's the one trying to define what it should or shouldn't be? That seems like social engineering. This will probably end another chapter of social engineering. Which I predicted would happen once the first bans hit states books- marriage is legally recognized, and how can one restrict it between two loving people? Seems like two people marrying each other because they love each other is a better idea than arranged or forced marriages.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

So back to this raisin business, what exactly did Sotomayor believe? That the government has every right to take those raisins without compensation because why?

The government has every right to take those raisins without current compensation now, because hypothetically the raisin growers might conceivably maybe get something for them in the future, possibly.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

At one time there was a sequence of thread titles that made puns out of each SCOTUS name: "Release the Kagan", "Roberts Rules of Order", "Doubting Thomas", something about Breyer's ice cream, etc.

oh, well.

 

[unofan]

At one time there was a sequence of thread titles that made puns out of each SCOTUS name: "Release the Kagan", "Roberts Rules of Order", "Doubting Thomas", something about Breyer's ice cream, etc.

oh, well.

You'll live.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

At one time there was a sequence of thread titles that made puns out of each SCOTUS name: "Release the Kagan", "Roberts Rules of Order", "Doubting Thomas", something about Breyer's ice cream, etc.

oh, well.

Alito bit crazy.

Scaliosis.

Sotomayor, and tell me that you love me.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Kennedy stand for Diplomacy?

I'd rather read Ginsberg.

That should round it out.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

That's your reaction and obviously I can't argue with what I said meant for you. What I meant to do was exactly the opposite of what you're accusing me of doing -- I was trying to separate "y is an x-ist" from "y holds a viewpoint which is x-ist." If a lot of people react the way you did, I failed in what I was trying to do.

I think you may be primarily reacting against my characterization of opposition to gay marriage as homophobic. I don't see any way around that disagreement -- in my opinion it is a homophobic viewpoint, with all that's happened in public discourse since the 70's to educate people and disabuse them of their prejudices.

I have far more reason to say you are Christianphobic (given your serial ramblings about how conservative Christians are horrible in every way possible and cause pretty much every problem in existence and then some) than you do for calling me or my viewpoint (whatever fine line you're trying to make there) homophobic. But I don't, as I find such labeling counterproductive among other reasons. But, such labeling is an easy way to stigmatize those with a different view. Happens all over the place, but calling people homophobic is a grossly obvious example these days. Homophobic is one of those overused stick people in a box words that should be given a break. Anyone remotely not supporting anything related to homosexuality is labeled homophobic and you're a classic example of that.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

No I don't. What I wrote was that, in the end, opposition to gay marriage now, in this social context, is homophobic, and people who are newly minted now would be homophobic to hold that view, but we also have (or are) "legacy people" whose opinions were formed in a very different world in which gay marriage was literally "unthinkable." Opposition to gay marriage then did not constitute homophobia -- it was meaningless, like opposing unicorn marriage.

Let me give an example. Lincoln favored deporting the blacks back to Africa, or so I've been told -- that might be one of those myths, but let's assume arguendo that he did. In my opinion, that does not make Lincoln a racist. If somebody born in 1963 thought that... yeah, they'd be a racist. We can only be evaluated in terms of the time in which we were formed. Ideally, we keep an open mind and our opinions do change over time as we learn more and our surroundings change and we emerge from the parochialism of our upbringing, but like the very nice grandma who uses the N word, there are plenty of good people who hold obsolete opinions.

tl; dr: what I said was, I think it's possible for someone to hold a bigoted opinion without being a bigot.

That's ridiculous parsing, though you say it well.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

That's ridiculous parsing, though you say it well.

It's not parsing, it's reasoning, and it's far from ridiculous. You are trying to conflate two separate things, as anybody who's ever been in the "you called me stupid," "no, I said that's a stupid think to say" fight knows.

You keep wanting to apply your labels to me, and when they don't stick you say "stop wriggling around and let me label you, darn it!" You can address the argument or tell me where the argument is irrelevant or tell me to pound sand. The thing you don't get to do is to say "I'm ignoring your argument and telling you want your real motives are."

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

My thoughts tend to be: replace "gay" (or similar term) with "black" (or similar term) in any statement. If the new statement sounds racist, the original one was probably homophobic.