- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The implications of the forced gay marriage legislation
Posted on 9/5/14 at 12:35 pm
Posted on 9/5/14 at 12:35 pm
The 1960s were a time of great social upheaval. The Civil Rights movement, with Dr. King as its appointed spiritual leader, marched on Washington, protested, gave speeches, and demonstrated their plight thoroughly to the American people. They changed the culture, changed the hearts and mind gradually over time, and our elected representatives took heed and changed the laws. Cultural change took a long, long time. It was a struggle.
Contrast that with the gay agenda. They are bypassing the struggle. They are not changing the culture, they are not interested in changing the hearts and minds. They are interested in demonizing the disagreeable hearts and minds. Unlike the Civil Rights Movement, they have not thoroughly convinced the people. Instead of maintaining the struggle and fighting the arduous process, they are simply having solitary activist judges change the law, and I guess sort of "hoping" the culture catches up eventually.
Gay activists, do you not understand the implications of this? You are forcing social change through surreptitious legislation on a population that doesn't want it, because you believe you are right and they are wrong. That's it. Any expounding would only be as to WHY you are right and they are wrong. And you are proud of it? Do you not see that it is unabashed fascism? That can't be argued.
Perhaps one day, a minority activist group that you happen to disagree with, will force change you don't want simply because they know better than you. Then you will understand the problem. Your argument as to right and wrong is irrelevant to me, in fact I tend to agree. It's your methods that are absolutely frightening.
Contrast that with the gay agenda. They are bypassing the struggle. They are not changing the culture, they are not interested in changing the hearts and minds. They are interested in demonizing the disagreeable hearts and minds. Unlike the Civil Rights Movement, they have not thoroughly convinced the people. Instead of maintaining the struggle and fighting the arduous process, they are simply having solitary activist judges change the law, and I guess sort of "hoping" the culture catches up eventually.
Gay activists, do you not understand the implications of this? You are forcing social change through surreptitious legislation on a population that doesn't want it, because you believe you are right and they are wrong. That's it. Any expounding would only be as to WHY you are right and they are wrong. And you are proud of it? Do you not see that it is unabashed fascism? That can't be argued.
Perhaps one day, a minority activist group that you happen to disagree with, will force change you don't want simply because they know better than you. Then you will understand the problem. Your argument as to right and wrong is irrelevant to me, in fact I tend to agree. It's your methods that are absolutely frightening.
This post was edited on 9/5/14 at 12:46 pm
23
Posted on 9/5/14 at 12:42 pm to genro
Posted on 9/5/14 at 12:45 pm to genro
quote:
I'll preface by saying I don't have a problem with gay people or them getting married.
You defeat your argument before you even start it when you say that.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 12:46 pm to constant cough
tick tick tick
Posted on 9/5/14 at 12:47 pm to asurob1
What does tick tick tick mean? That you're forcing the times to change even though the majority of people in a free and democratic country don't want it? And you think that's a good thing?
This post was edited on 9/5/14 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 9/5/14 at 12:49 pm to genro
quote:
Contrast that with the gay agenda. They are bypassing the struggle. They are not changing the culture, they are not interested in changing the hearts and minds. They are interested in demonizing the disagreeable hearts and minds. Unlike the Civil Rights Movement, they have not thoroughly convinced the people. Instead of maintaining the struggle and fighting the arduous process, they are simply having solitary activist judges change the law, and I guess sort of "hoping" the culture catches up eventually.
are you familiar with what happened in the civil rights era? Much of the initial break through was through judicial decisions. Brown vs. board of education, anyone?
Posted on 9/5/14 at 12:50 pm to genro
quote:
majority of people in a free and democratic country don't want it
Not exactly true anymore. It's at the tipping point, give or take.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 12:51 pm to sacredcow
quote:Then why is it being forced through by a few individuals? If that's true, keep fighting the fight, and then run it through Congress or a direct vote.
Not exactly true anymore. It's at the tipping point, give or take.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 12:52 pm to genro
It's unfortunately just the way of the world now a days. If you disagree with someone you hate them. I personally don't agree with that assumption but many people do. And let's be honest, gay people can compare this struggle with the civil rights movement but gay people don't face 1/100000000 of the atrocities blacks did.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 1:00 pm to Mattwells90
Lincoln was an abolitionist, but recognized that the people didn't want it. Even by the time of the EP, you could say he overstepped his bounds, but prior to that understood that the people's will stood supreme. He could give speeches and impassioned pleas, but for decades understood it was up to people. Susan B Anthony also struggled through her lecturing and writing. Sure, she was right all along but it still took nearly a century and years after her death for elected representatives to pass legislation.
The process may sound tragic, it's long and uphill, but necessary. To immediately force change on an unwilling population is pure aristocratic intellectual arrogance. It is pure Stalinism, Maoism. And they don't even care, for the same reasons Stalin and Mao didn't care, because they were right and everyone else was wrong. They knew what was best for society.
The process may sound tragic, it's long and uphill, but necessary. To immediately force change on an unwilling population is pure aristocratic intellectual arrogance. It is pure Stalinism, Maoism. And they don't even care, for the same reasons Stalin and Mao didn't care, because they were right and everyone else was wrong. They knew what was best for society.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 1:03 pm to genro
We're all like that today. A bunch of little Popes declaring with ex cathedra authority what is right and wrong. Hooray for American individualism.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 1:05 pm to the808bass
A little ironic that our personal individualism can cause us to view society as a whole organism, people as malleable populations instead of individuals.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 1:07 pm to genro
Good point.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 1:09 pm to genro
quote:
Then why is it being forced through by a few individuals? If that's true, keep fighting the fight, and then run it through Congress or a direct vote.
Among many reasons is the fact that very few, if any, elected law/policy makers at any level truly represent the will of their constituents anymore. They are beholden to lobbyists, special interest groups- whomever has the deepest pockets to keep them in office. I suppose that they see it as the quickest way to make something happen.
This post was edited on 9/5/14 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 9/5/14 at 1:13 pm to genro
We know that it almost always fails when voted on.
So much for the will of the people, democracy, and all that rot.
So much for the will of the people, democracy, and all that rot.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 1:16 pm to TrueTiger
Look, a few people are smarter and kinder and more open-minded than everyone else. They know what is right, and they are forcing the change. Nevermind that this mindset always leads to massive social engineering attempts by an aristocratic few. Which in turn always lead to mass death, dislocation, and economic collapse. Nevermind all that, because they're just so damn right about this.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 1:19 pm to genro
So basically you're saying they have to go through hell, deal with bogots, stage protests, ect... Before they "deserve" their equality?
So the racists int he 60's were actually the good guys, helping the black people earn respect?
So the racists int he 60's were actually the good guys, helping the black people earn respect?
Posted on 9/5/14 at 1:23 pm to genro
quote:
They are bypassing the struggle.
You realize "the struggle" has been going on for a few decades now, right? This didn't just start in the last few years.
quote:
Unlike the Civil Rights Movement, they have not thoroughly convinced the people
Depends on which polls you read.
quote:
they are simply having solitary activist judges change the law, and I guess sort of "hoping" the culture catches up eventually.
Yeah, exactly. Some of the first battles in the Civil Rights movement for blacks were won in the courts.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 1:25 pm to The Spleen
quote:
You realize "the struggle" has been going on for a few decades now, right? This didn't just start in the last few years.
actually the original struggle was to get government out of their lives....this latest incantation is by the selfie crowd and they want government back in.
Posted on 9/5/14 at 1:26 pm to Tiger1242
quote:No. I'm saying social change is a long process than can't be forced. There will only be backlash.
So basically you're saying they have to go through hell, deal with bogots, stage protests, ect... Before they "deserve" their equality?
quote:You seem to have some strange idea, that everyone was terrible until the 1960s and then people got good. While there were certainly bad-hearted bigots who did horrible things, the vast majority of the culture was "racist" in a much more passive and sedentary way. They did not lynch or pelt rocks, but they held their views because of the culture. You would've been a "racist" in 1960s southern white culture, because that was the prevailing ethos of the culture. That ethos was gradually changed, and now there aren't nearly as many "racist" people. People didn't get better, the culture got better, and people followed with it.
So the racists int he 60's were actually the good guys, helping the black people earn respect?
This post was edited on 9/5/14 at 1:28 pm
Page 1 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News