Action requires violence?

[Shaman_Raman]

So the gay rights movement seems to be progressing pretty slow in the US. A lot of news commentators call it the new civil rights movement. But back then, one of the greatest advances toward equality happened in the aftermath of televised brutality on African Americans down in the south. So, in some sick way, do we have to see violence inflicted on gay couples in order for their equal rights to take full flight?

[cacian]

I would hope not. Violence is not needed in the face of what is right.I am surprised they have not banned violence yet.
Rights are difficult to imply when beliefs against them are engrained. Belief is difficult to remove.
The other issues with right is that one may get his or her right to civil liberty discipline and freedom of being but one does not guarantee its popularity. Meaning whilst you can ride the horse to the river you may not make it drink.
So whilst words a law passes people don't and that is the key issue.

[cafolini]

Progress was never gained without violence and violence is unavoidable. The gay movement is an economic issue that involves tax issues as well as security and inheritance.

[cacian]

Progress was never gained without violence and violence is unavoidable. The gay movement is an economic issue that involves tax issues as well as security and inheritance.

That goes without saying but then the same applies to childless couples. How do they apply?

[Shaman_Raman]

I would hope not. Violence is not needed in the face of what is right.I am surprised they have not banned violence yet.
Rights are difficult to imply when beliefs against them are engrained. Belief is difficult to remove.
The other issues with right is that one may get his or her right to civil liberty discipline and freedom of being but one does not guarantee its popularity. Meaning whilst you can ride the horse to the river you may not make it drink.
So whilst words a law passes people don't and that is the key issue.


Well you could be right, it may not be popular amongst the majority of people,but that's why I wonder if violence is necessary to change public opinion? It's like having to watch school after school get shot up until someone questions gun rights, which even then, is still indecisive on a proper approach toward fixing that problem.

[Shaman_Raman]

Progress was never gained without violence and violence is unavoidable. The gay movement is an economic issue that involves tax issues as well as security and inheritance.

You're right, which is where marriage ties into it. Is giving gay couples all the tax and inheritance benefits through a civil union justice? I mean, isn't the only visible difference between a civil union and a marriage the title?

[cacian]

Well you could be right, it may not be popular amongst the majority of people,but that's why I wonder if violence is necessary to change public opinion? It's like having to watch school after school get shot up until someone questions gun rights, which even then, is still indecisive on a proper approach toward fixing that problem.

You put your finger on it.

''fixing that problem.''

It is not a problem and that is why there is a violence and there are supposedly rights to put it right. There ain't a problem from the word go and violence therefore is to make it as though there was one. ;)
Actually again this reminds me of the german nazis 'the jewish question'. You see they named it the 'question' because they could not find the answer for it. To name it a question is to make it look like it has an answer that needs to be found.
we know there is no question what there is is a statement. The question may or mayu not come ever.
The same goes with the 'problem' as though there was a solution to it. We know there is no solution and no problem what there is facts.
To justify a fact is to create its problem and insolvent it shall remain because of the way the sequences are mangled.

[Shaman_Raman]

I have no idea what the hell you just said...are you implying violence isn't a credible reason to see a flaw or problem with something? Or are you just expressing your opinion that there's no problem with current gun control or gay rights policies? I have no problem if that's your opinion, I'm just unclear as to what exactly you´re saying.

[OrphanPip]

Well I'm a little more troubled by the notion that the gay rights movement is a "new" civil rights movement. The Chicago Society of Human Rights was founded in the 1920's and the Mattachine Society, the first national gay rights organization, was founded in 1950.

The gay rights movement has also had moments of violent resistance, like the Stonewall Riots. ACT UP and Queer Nation occasionally advocated more violent and destructive resistance, but these organizations have become less confrontational since the 90's. The primary reason being that the gay rights movement, like the black civil rights movement, has integrated into a political alliance with the mainstream left.

[stlukesguild]

I am surprised they have not banned violence yet.

Only Cacian could come up with this idea. :rolleyes5:

[cafolini]

I am surprised they have not banned violence yet.

Only Cacian could come up with this idea. :rolleyes5:

LOL. If violence were banned, Cacian would be one of the first ones to be enslaved under some yoke.

[Shaman_Raman]

Well I'm a little more troubled by the notion that the gay rights movement is a "new" civil rights movement. The Chicago Society of Human Rights was founded in the 1920's and the Mattachine Society, the first national gay rights organization, was founded in 1950.

The gay rights movement has also had moments of violent resistance, like the Stonewall Riots. ACT UP and Queer Nation occasionally advocated more violent and destructive resistance, but these organizations have become less confrontational since the 90's. The primary reason being that the gay rights movement, like the black civil rights movement, has integrated into a political alliance with the mainstream left.

Orphanpip, I agree. I said that's how commentators speak of it, because frankly I have a hard time seeing the current debate over gay marriage as an issue of civil rights. It's not as if the homosexual community is being attacked simply by their orientation, but rather their desire to be included in the sanctity of marriage. I just feel the best argument against it is in some way religious,which I see as a direct violation of our fundamental idea of separation of church and state. I almost feel like the argument has to become what is marriage: a religious or a state sanction?

I also agree that the liberal left wing has picked up support on gay rights, like marriage. However, sometimes with the left wing, I can't determine if their support is genuine, or if it's more about getting the vote...which I like to hope not, but politics is dirty.

[OrphanPip]

Orphanpip, I agree. I said that's how commentators speak of it, because frankly I have a hard time seeing the current debate over gay marriage as an issue of civil rights. It's not as if the homosexual community is being attacked simply by their orientation, but rather their desire to be included in the sanctity of marriage. I just feel the best argument against it is in some way religious,which I see as a direct violation of our fundamental idea of separation of church and state. I almost feel like the argument has to become what is marriage: a religious or a state sanction?

That's not quite right. Marriage rights incorporate access to a number of legal protections that range from access to inheritance of a partner's property, parental rights, immigration rights, insurance benefits, taxation, and hospital access among others. Moreover, religious rights are civil rights, why does a religious majority get to bar certain churches from providing same-sex marriages if they believe in them. It's a fact that the religious right likes to ignore when it defines marriage as a religious jurisdiction, where does that leave churches like the Unitarians who will perform gay marriages? We can't discuss current politics here though.

[Calidore]

So the gay rights movement seems to be progressing pretty slow in the US. A lot of news commentators call it the new civil rights movement. But back then, one of the greatest advances toward equality happened in the aftermath of televised brutality on African Americans down in the south. So, in some sick way, do we have to see violence inflicted on gay couples in order for their equal rights to take full flight?

Equal rights for minorities certainly hasn't ended violence against them. Also, women won equal rights without a great deal of violence. More recently, there have been numerous incidents of violence against gay folks, some well publicized, but only sporadic legislation--baby steps. Eventually it'll go through, as it always does, and then the haters will need a new target. So what'll be next? I'm betting left-handers or redheads.

[Adolescent09]

This is a great thread, Shaman. Just as dust clears in the event of a sandstorm, vapors drift after sizzled flames, and sunlight glistens through torrential rain, violence instigates the catalyst for change and is often a means of amplifying the sentiment of a disenfranchised people. Irrational violence that results in the deaths of innocent people often catapults the demand for justice to the forefront. Where chaos culminates and the road to sanity ensues is blurred and highly debatable.

[cacian]

I am surprised they have not banned violence yet.

Only Cacian could come up with this idea. :rolleyes5:

LOL what. Well they ban everthing else. why not violence next.
killing is banned. one goes to prison for it. I am just adding violence to it. ;)

[Adolescent09]

LOL what. Well they ban everthing else. why not violence next.
killing is banned. one goes to prison for it. I am just adding violence to it. ;)

In my opinion, violence is in a wide gray area between masochism and sadism where death is the extreme result at either end. As far as I am concerned, in most civilized countries it is 'banned' since it typically leads to ubiquitous harm or as I said... death. Either I am completely missing your point or you are erroneously categorizing killing and violence as two mutually separate entities.

[cacian]

I have no idea what the hell you just said...are you implying violence isn't a credible reason to see a flaw or problem with something? Or are you just expressing your opinion that there's no problem with current gun control or gay rights policies? I have no problem if that's your opinion, I'm just unclear as to what exactly you´re saying.

Hi Shaman. I am implying that violence justifies the means. It gives a reason for people to think that there is something wrong with sexuality that is different from mine or yours. We know from the onset there is no wrong or right. What there is people first and foremost.
The real fuss here is the law. When the law gets involved it is like in handing rights here and there a pitiful act I would call it and a vicious one. IT is a bit like charity handing goods to the poor and deprived when we know it is not about giving it is about acting upon it by means of doing. It is not about the money it is about the cuts the benefit the reward the bonuses as we call them.
The principle of a right is to stigmatise something that was never an issue into another thing bigger it ever was It messes with people's head to put it bluntly. It turns something like sexuality into a debatable question. Here the word question is compared with the jewish question. I was making a reference to it.
Sexuality is being made a scapegoat for the law to be seen acting but in fact its idea behind it is speculative manipulation. It turns sexuality into a popular dication where buy one gets the freedom to allow, as if it was not allowed at the first place because instinctively do apply it anyway, and at the same time give others a reason watch and declare it not to be.
This is where religion kicks in. Religion is the mantra of social life politics. It is to sweeten the honey. The bitter end of the sap.
The laws manipulate and religion gets its upper hand telling us it is not the right things. The idea is to keep conflict rearing and the world hating each other. It is obvious that what one gives you with one hand takes it with another.
So to sum it up is not about being sexually motivated towards the same sex or different because in the end people will carry on doing they need to do.
Religion is the conflict politics is the stirrer and the law is the devil's advocate . It sits in between the two and play counterfeits against benefits.
And in the meantime it is the money making machine blowing hot and cold and not keeping its lid on.
Violence yes that is the culprit and the biggest mistake the stirrer behind the wheel will have to pick up eventually because someone has to.

[cacian]

In my opinion, violence is in a wide gray area between masochism and sadism where death is the extreme result at either end. As far as I am concerned, in most civilized countries it is 'banned' since it typically leads to ubiquitous harm or as I said... death. Either I am completely missing your point or you are erroneously categorizing killing and violence as two mutually separate entities.

I am being ironic. I am just saying one might as well ban violence too. One knows one can't but one can ban it just to make a point.
Banning is rife these days isn't it?