MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Saturday, January 31, 2015 |  Madison, WI: 30.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

Well Now That MY Son Is Gay...

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: Well Now That MY Son Is Gay...

Postby wack wack » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:48 am

ArturoBandini wrote:while Wallace was endorsed by the NAACP.


So you believe the support by the NAACP against someone even more racist disproves that Wallace was a racist bastard? I do not.

ArturoBandini wrote:In the wake of his defeat, Wallace "made a Faustian bargain," said Emory University professor Dan Carter. "In order to survive and get ahead politically in the 1960s, he sold his soul to the devil on race." He adopted a hard-line segregationist stance and used this stand to court the white vote in the next gubernatorial election in 1962. When a supporter asked why he started using racist messages, Wallace replied, "You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about niggers, and they stomped the floor."


And you believe this disproves that Wallace was a racist bastard? I do not.

In both cases above, it takes a tremendous amount of assumption to get from what we're reading to what you're trying to claim. Reading comprehension, indeed.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: Well Now That MY Son Is Gay...

Postby ArturoBandini » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:50 am

I don't know what point you are trying to make here.

I'm not trying to excuse Wallace. I'm trying to demonstrate that bigoted positions taken by those in power are unacceptable whether they stem from deep-seated personal prejudice or mere political convenience. We shouldn't excuse politicians who hold anti-gay positions by rationalizing that it is electorally advantageous for them to do so.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Well Now That MY Son Is Gay...

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:55 am

ArturoBandini wrote:We shouldn't excuse politicians who hold anti-gay positions by rationalizing that it is electorally advantageous for them to do so.

Who said we should? Straw man.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20406
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Well Now That MY Son Is Gay...

Postby wack wack » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:57 am

ArturoBandini wrote:
wack wack wrote:Please list the legal rights not afforded by "civil unions." Then explain how the concept of a legal "marriage" is something more than a civil union dressed in the language of religion.
Here's GLAD on this matter.

Without question, civil unions are better than zero rights or recognition for gay couples, but civil unions are not equivalent to marriage in either legal or symbolic terms.


I have little sympathy for those concerned about "symbolic" issues. My personal opinion is that there should be no such thing as legal "marriage." All legal relationship contracts should be called civil unions. It's up your preferred church to bless the union with "marriage."

The differences highlighted in the GLAD document exist because of a lack of Federal recognition of individual states' civil unions. I don't see anything in the document, other than the symbolic issues mentioned, suggesting that a federal civil union law would still fall short of "marriage."
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: Well Now That MY Son Is Gay...

Postby wack wack » Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:07 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:I'm trying to demonstrate that bigoted positions taken by those in power are unacceptable whether they stem from deep-seated personal prejudice or mere political convenience. We shouldn't excuse politicians who hold anti-gay positions by rationalizing that it is electorally advantageous for them to do so.


Strategy is as evil as hate. Got it.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: Well Now That MY Son Is Gay...

Postby ArturoBandini » Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:12 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
ArturoBandini wrote:We shouldn't excuse politicians who hold anti-gay positions by rationalizing that it is electorally advantageous for them to do so.

Who said we should? Straw man.
wack wack deflected the Meade's criticism of Hillary Clinton's "evolution" of policy stances on gay marriage by saying that it was a matter of politics, not bigotry.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Well Now That MY Son Is Gay...

Postby ArturoBandini » Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:25 pm

How can you rectify these two statements?
wack wack wrote:I have little sympathy for those concerned about "symbolic" issues.
wack wack wrote:Strategy is as evil as hate. Got it.

Hate is purely symbolic without strategy or application. Implicit in your facetious second statement is that hate is more evil that strategy. Therefore it follows that the symbolic underpinning of discriminatory policy (hate) is more evil (worse) than the discriminatory policy itself. Now revisit the first statement.

I'd argue that "hate" alone is thoughtcrime and not practically punishable or preventable by law or political means. Strategy, as in, the policy positions taken by people seeking power, and the actual implementation of those policies by people in power, is much more measurably detrimental than symbolic hate. Put bluntly, discriminatory strategy is more evil than hate.

By the way, I basically agree with your position on gay marriage. All "marriages" should be granted the exact same rights (if any) by governments at any level.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Well Now That MY Son Is Gay...

Postby wack wack » Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:29 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:
ArturoBandini wrote:We shouldn't excuse politicians who hold anti-gay positions by rationalizing that it is electorally advantageous for them to do so.

Who said we should? Straw man.
wack wack deflected the Meade's criticism of Hillary Clinton's "evolution" of policy stances on gay marriage by saying that it was a matter of politics, not bigotry.


Arturo, Hillary Clinton is a progressive politician: she is always moving, always changing. if you are able to do an honest evaluation of her life and career as a politician, I believe you'll find that Hillary Clinton has always been just a step or two behind society with her political beliefs, exactly where a genuine but strategically shrewd politician should be. I don't find anything in her history to suggest she was actively bigoted against homosexuals, or any other group for that matter.

Do you really not see the difference between this and Portman's conduct, or are you just flexing your contrarian muscles here?
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: Well Now That MY Son Is Gay...

Postby jman111 » Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:43 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:How can you rectify these two statements?
wack wack wrote:I have little sympathy for those concerned about "symbolic" issues.
wack wack wrote:Strategy is as evil as hate. Got it.

Hate is purely symbolic without strategy or application. Implicit in your facetious second statement is that hate is more evil that strategy. Therefore it follows that the symbolic underpinning of discriminatory policy (hate) is more evil (worse) than the discriminatory policy itself. Now revisit the first statement.

I'd argue that "hate" alone is thoughtcrime and not practically punishable or preventable by law or political means. Strategy, as in, the policy positions taken by people seeking power, and the actual implementation of those policies by people in power, is much more measurably detrimental than symbolic hate. Put bluntly, discriminatory strategy is more evil than hate.

By the way, I basically agree with your position on gay marriage. All "marriages" should be granted the exact same rights (if any) by governments at any level.

Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but isn't the disagreement over which (hate vs political strategy) is "more evil" as a motivator/reason for acting or implementing discriminatory policy?
(as opposed to utilization of strategy vs existence of hate)
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3179
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: Well Now That MY Son Is Gay...

Postby ArturoBandini » Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:48 pm

I see the difference, but that difference is irrelevant. My claim is that Portman and Clinton should be treated the same in terms of their "coming around" on gay issues, even though their motivations may differ. Their true motivations aren't ultimately knowable to us, but their actions are, and actions are what matter. If you condemn Portman for hypocrisy, you must also condemn Clinton (and the host of other politicians who took similar paths) for hypocrisy. If you condone Clinton, you must also condone Portman. I frankly don't care what anyone's motivations are, and I'm glad that some politicians are moving their statements and actions in the right direction for whatever reason.

The fickle, sycophantic and unprincipled nature of progressivism is a fault, in my opinion.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Well Now That MY Son Is Gay...

Postby ArturoBandini » Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:56 pm

jman111 wrote:Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but isn't the disagreement over which (hate vs political strategy) is "more evil" as a motivator/reason for acting or implementing discriminatory policy?
(as opposed to utilization of strategy vs existence of hate)
That's a fine way to describe the issue, but I'd claim that a person's motivations are unknowable to people other than that person, and therefore such an argument is entirely subjective. One can feel hatred without acting on it, but political strategy without policy implementation seems like a harder thing to accomplish (although not impossible - look at Scott Walker's political strategy of "job creation" policies that have either not been implemented, or have failed to produce results).

If we're just talking about the abstract feelings of hate versus political ambition, I'd say that both are equivalently evil in whatever metaphysical sense you choose. On an absolute scale of evil, I'd say that neither matter unless put into action (therefore, zero absolute evil units).
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Well Now That MY Son Is Gay...

Postby Ducatista » Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:58 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:I see the difference, but that difference is irrelevant. My claim is that Portman and Clinton should be treated the same in terms of their "coming around" on gay issues, even though their motivations may differ. Their true motivations aren't ultimately knowable to us, but their actions are, and actions are what matter.

That's fatuous. Of course the difference is relevant, because anti-gay attitudes and discrimination aren't just a product of legislation. (Do I really need to say that to a libertarian?)

A hater will have a much more corrosive effect than a foot-dragger, in word and action.
Ducatista
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4381
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 12:31 pm
Location: 53703

Re: Well Now That MY Son Is Gay...

Postby jman111 » Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:01 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:If you condemn Portman for hypocrisy, you must also condemn Clinton (and the host of other politicians who took similar paths) for hypocrisy.
except (emphasis mine)
wack wack wrote:Let's not forgot, as Meade so kindly pointed out, at the point where Ms. Clinton "opposed" gay marriage, she supported civil unions affording committed gay couples the same legal rights as married couples. Discriminatory in name, perhaps, but not much more.

Marriages could continue to exist as religious institutions while government could replace "marital rights" with "civil union rights". Why should governmental policies be dictated by the policies of specific religions?
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3179
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: Well Now That MY Son Is Gay...

Postby ArturoBandini » Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:02 pm

Ducatista wrote:A hater will have a much more corrosive effect than a foot-dragger, in word and action.
How do you measure this corrosivity?
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: Well Now That MY Son Is Gay...

Postby wack wack » Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:05 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:If you condemn Portman for hypocrisy, you must also condemn Clinton (and the host of other politicians who took similar paths) for hypocrisy. If you condone Clinton, you must also condone Portman.


No. You're drawing a completely false equivalency.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar