|
Lightning Knight posted:Well, sure, and I think the stupidity of his arguments is amusing, but he's making GBS threads up the thread and it's annoying. If there were any fairness in terms of moderating this forum, you would be banned for a day or so for tossing around insults rather than debating using substance in an adult way. Have you learned anything about Civil War history?! The fact that Lincoln and the vast majority of the Republican Party did not give a poo poo whether or not the slaves were freed or not is not a debatable point. And the evidence to support Lincoln's overt and rabid racism is impossible to deny. Yes, the Civil War was fought to strengthen the Federal Government and forever eliminate the concept of secession and the original intent of the Constitution. You might think those are sufficient reasons for the Civil War but you cannot make the claim that equality for blacks or eliminating slavery was a goal of Lincoln when he started the Civil War. If you are honestly attempting to critique me on this point, I want you to read this short article and tell me what it gets wrong historically: http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo241.html There is plenty more where that came from. I have mountains of evidence to support my claims and I know Civil War history very well. From what I gather, it doesn't seem you have even broached the subject in an even cursory manner.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 05:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I think you are really stretching to find a scenario where my argument falls apart. The situation you are describing is so remote. I know Texas is somewhat backwards, but the idea that lawyers who you pay, will refuse to help you arrange a contract because they are homophobic and you couldn't find any non-homophobic lawyers seems patently absurd. Universe where Gay Marriage is legalized Federally: A man enters the emergency room. "My husband has been injured in a car accident, I need to see him". A nurse quickly escorts him to his husband's room and lets him complete paperwork with important health and insurance information. Libertarian Universe: A man enters the emergency room. "My husband has been injured in a car accident, I need to see him". A nurse eventually escorts him to the hospital's lawyer, who reviews the custom-written marriage contract that the man and his partner have written with the assistance of out-of-state gay marriage advocates and have to carry on them at all times. "I'm afraid I will have to get clarification on Subsection C line 3, sir", says the lawyer. The lawyer asks the man to wait until business hours Monday, as it is late Friday afternoon and the lawyer has dinner plans. After waiting out the weekend, the man returns to the lawyer and learns that he will need to present his case before civil court in 4-8 weeks. Oh, and that he will need to outlay several hundreds to thousands of dollars for his personal lawyer to represent him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Universe where Gay Marriage is legalized Federally: why do you hate freedom
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
EDIT: Dropping the derail.
CheesyDog fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Pure idiocy I'm not even going to read the article because I read the title and the fact Lincoln was a racist just like just about every other white person at the time doesn't change the fact the civil war was completely about slavery unless you live in lala land. We don't need some modern analysis, the southern states spell out the perceived threat to slavery as their reason for leaving the union in their various letters of secession. Not to mention southern states gave no shits about state's rights in the years leading up to the war if those rights were in any regard not helping slavery or slave owners. Governments don't allowed sections of their country to just leave whenever there are disagreements, the South started the war and there was no other reason than slavery. Also the precious constitution says many things about joining the union, it says nothing about leaving, so there's also that. e: Sorry thread for continuing this derail, I forgot this was the marriage thread for a moment. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:There is plenty more where that came from. I have mountains of evidence to support my claims and I know Civil War history very well. Somehow I feel you know less than a man named James McPherson. You should email him and blow his mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 05:45
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If you are honestly attempting to critique me on this point, I want you to read this short article and tell me what it gets wrong historically: If you're expecting us to take an article seriously, you might want to make sure it does not start out by complaining that quote:the lily-white leftists at the Southern Poverty Law Center, the preeminent hate group of the hardcore Left
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 05:45
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If there were any fairness in terms of moderating this forum, you would be banned for a day or so for tossing around insults rather than debating using substance in an adult way. This is a horrible derail right as SCOTUS is getting ready to release their prep work for some critical decisions on the state of marriage equality at the federal level, but whatever. Don't take your history lessons from white supremacists and pro-southern revisionists. There is no debate over whether Lincoln wanted to free the slaves. He did. He was well-known as an abolitionist, which was a big part of why the Southern states saw his election as a reason to get their treason on and attack the legitimate government of the US. Yes, he was also kinda racist - but that doesn't mean that the people who opposed him were any better. In fact, they were a lot worse, because they just happened to kill hundreds of thousands of people for their "right" to keep other human beings in bondage. If you're referring to Lincon's letter to Horace Greely ("If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.") then you're missing the point. Greely was a well-known abolitionist, and he wrote an editorial in the New York Tribune that basically said, "hey, Mr. President, we elected you as an abolitionist, everybody knows you're an abolitionist, so why the gently caress haven't you gotten on freeing the slaves yet?" In return, Lincoln wrote back a letter that said, more or less, "hey, if you haven't noticed, there's a war here and I'm trying to keep the country together." But, he still finished up with, "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free." Oh, and he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation and got the Thirteenth Amendment through Congress, which pretty much wins him the all-time title for Most Effective American Abolitionist. So, I do think we can comfortably say that Lincoln did in fact give a poo poo about freeing slaves, and that Lew Rockwell and his cohorts are revisionist shitheads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:There is plenty more where that came from. I have mountains of evidence to support my claims and I know Civil War history very well. From what I gather, it doesn't seem you have even broached the subject in an even cursory manner. You should listen to Yawgmoft and give James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom a read. Summary is that your interpretation of the Civil War and the politics involved is very, very flawed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
Lincoln was exactly as racist as most every other abolitionist was, he believed we had no right to own people, but he believed the idea that those people we had no right to own were inferior to him. That's a lovely way to look at things but no, he was not a secret pro-slaver dude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 05:56
|
|
|
mdemone posted:You really needed a better education. I'd ask you to support any one of these assertions, but its pointless and you'll clearly obfuscate. I'll go through these one by one. First of all, clearly government failed to protect the equal rights of blacks in this country. Slavery should have been illegal from the drafting of the Constitution. That is a failure of government to tolerate such an immoral practice for so long. Following that Jim Crow laws were enacted and laws of these kind should have been expressly made illegal at the federal level. Don't you wonder why the worst instances of segregation occurred in public, government run institutions? In the private economy, segregation is extremely costly and the market punishes companies that exclude potential customers. I just find it a bit odd that you point out the heroic government that outlawed segregation in government schools. Yay? Government should have never instituted segregation in schools in the first place! Yes, we are happy they finally got their act together and integrated their own schools and the military and got rid of their own oppressive laws and finally started prosecuting whites that killed blacks and provided equal justice under the law for minorities. I just can't bring myself to bend over backwards to praise the "progressive" federal government for finally undoing its own atrocious policies that should have been repealed decades earlier. If governments had done what they were supposed to do earlier on and desegregated its own schools and the military and repealed its own horrific laws like Jim Crow, it would have saved black people decades of needless suffering. This doesn't excuse the horrific actions of private individuals to harass and abuse blacks in the South or elsewhere, but it merely points out that governments tolerated horrific behavior for many decades before finally providing equal justice. As far as Lincoln and the Civil War goes, I suggest a few resources: http://mises.org/daily/5248/Why-the-Terrible-Destruction-of-the-Civil-War http://mises.org/daily/671/ http://albensonjr.com/mrlincolntheracist.shtml http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard175.html Of course there were vile racists in the South and there were many in the North as well. The point is the act of secession need not have led to a Civil War and there were many peaceful roads to the abolition of slavery that didn't involve the slaughter of 600,000 Americans. Many abolitionists, including Lysander Spooner criticized Lincoln and sought other methods of abolishing slavery. Yet he acknowledged the right of the states to secede. A few more resources: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/734540/posts http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo82.html If you have any challenges to my argument after reading these articles I am happy to address them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:00
|
|
|
Oh my god, at first I was just going to laugh at mises links, but you actually linked to FreeRepublic, a board full of crazy, seething racists. I guess you didn't see the Freep thread a few below this to know what exactly we think of FreeRepublic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I think you are really stretching to find a scenario where my argument falls apart. The situation you are describing is so remote. I know Texas is somewhat backwards, but the idea that lawyers who you pay, will refuse to help you arrange a contract because they are homophobic and you couldn't find any non-homophobic lawyers seems patently absurd. Mind you, you don't need Jim Crow laws to have racial segregation and oppression. You only need a majority population with a sizeable plurality (or majority) that dislikes and wishes to avoid minorities and a plurality of that majority that's not willing to fight it. If you own a restaurant, you don't hire minority waitstaff or cashiers, because your business will suffer as those minority-haters won't patronize you. You can't make it up with minority customers, because they're loving poor in the first place. In fact, you want to avoid having minority customers visible at all, lest you scare away the haters. If you're in an HOA, you don't want people to sell their houses to minorities, because your property values will drop. Maybe not immediately, but as the neighborhood becomes more minority-friendly the haters will sell, and by selling quick they'll take a lower price. So, by drawing up a contract that forbids people from selling their houses to minorities, you safeguard your home equity. If you're a college, you find reasons not to accept minorities. If you're a carrier like a railroad or an airline, you seat minority passengers separately or not at all. And so on and so forth. All of these institutional actions create an environment where as a minority you CANNOT succeed. Even sympathetic members of the majority aren't going to risk their livelihoods and reputations to advance the minority's interest. Someone has to move first, and left up to individuals NOBODY will. If you look at the US, the first major desegregation was the military. There were practical reasons. Maintaining separate facilities and units was a logistical pain in the rear end given the utter lack of a profit motive. You could order soldiers to shut the gently caress up about how they don't want to serve alongside negroes, and they couldn't quit. If they didn't volunteer in the first place, there was a draft to make them. This was an overwhelming success, since it provided an avenue for highly skilled and educated blacks to advance themselves and earn societal respect, when those same folks in the white population were going into business. Despite educational disadvantages in civilian society, blacks relatively quickly acquired a reputation for being high speed. White soldiers took this newfound respect with them when they returned to civilian life. Same with schools--the government had to use the goddamn military to desegregate some. Court victories abolished neighborhood restrictive covenants under the 14th amendment. The courts forced all common carriers like hotels and trains and airlines were forced to accept black customers. Didn't like it? We'd send men with guns to shut your lovely restaurant down. So don't loving tell us that coercion is immoral. Sometimes it's the only moral thing to do, and it's sometimes the only way to get something done. There may be gay friendly pockets in the US, but don't expect them to spread without coercion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:05
|
|
|
You keep making a distinction between the government's role in slavery and segregation and the public's role. The Southern public voted for legislators that fought bitterly to enshrine slavery and then supported a secessionist movement because of fears that slavery would end, founding a government explicitly dedicated to preserving the property rights of slaveowners. You're blaming all of this on the federal government. jrodefeld posted:Don't you wonder why the worst instances of segregation occurred in public, government run institutions? In the private economy, segregation is extremely costly and the market punishes companies that exclude potential customers. Have you ever thought that in a virulently racist society (e.g. 1860s America) that the market might punish companies that INCLUDED potential customers?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:06
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:In the private economy, segregation is extremely costly and the market punishes companies that exclude potential customers. 
CheesyDog fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:09
|
|
|
Adar posted:We really need a Civil War slavery bomb to add to the Ron Paul bomb. I don't deny any of that. My point was the North did not care about abolishing slavery. That is what I meant by the war was not fought over slavery. Yes, the reasons for secession of many southern states was partly over slavery, but the truth is that the war could have been easily avoided and slavery could have still been abolished. I have already posted a number of links on this subject and I don't think it is worth revisiting those now. I suggest you expand your views and read some more balanced history of the period.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:12
|
|
|
 son nicely done.jrodefeld, answer the drat question: are police and judges who would enforce these marriage contracts not, THEMSELVES, GOVERNMENT!?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:15
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yes, the reasons for secession of every southern state was only over slavery, There we go, fixed that quote:but the truth is that the war could have been easily avoided and slavery could have still been abolished. Yes, the South could've not committed treason over the right to own people, a right which was never in danger in states it already existed in to begin with. quote:jrodefeld, answer the drat question: are police and judges who would enforce these marriage contracts not, THEMSELVES, GOVERNMENT!? I don't know why this keeps being avoided, minus the purest of pure libertarians, most libertarians would say those are among the only legitimate parts of government.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:15
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Hey seriously, I'm gay, my state is infested with bigots, what do I do when ol Riptor comes a callin to make an honest man of me? No I don't agree at all. You do understand that, like racism, you cannot legislate away homophobia. Of course I support marriage equality. But some people will simply not accept gay marriage and reject that definition. I don't agree with that but that is reality. I am looking at what is currently possible. What I am saying is that any group, whether they are gay or any number of peaceful citizens want to form a union and call it marriage, it should be permissible. We cannot rationally expect everyone to come forward and pledge support for any specific definition of marriage nor should you expect this movement to end homophobia. Why do you want government involved in your personal relationship?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:18
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I just can't bring myself to bend over backwards to praise the "progressive" federal government for finally undoing its own atrocious policies that should have been repealed decades earlier. Instead we should follow the example of the states, who are always ahead of the federal government! For instance, Alabama, who repealed segregated education in... hold on a second, I'll find it... oh, wait, they didn't. That ballot measure failed. A month ago. Oh, they have a poll tax, too. And a constitutional prohibition to make sure that sodomites and miscegenators can't vote. If a wizard waved a magic wand, and made your dreams about the federal government come true, segregation would instantly be law again in at least one state. jrodefeld posted:I don't deny any of that. My point was the North did not care about abolishing slavery. An interesting point. But, on the other hand, recorded history. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No I don't agree at all. You do understand that, like racism, you cannot legislate away homophobia. Of course I support marriage equality. But some people will simply not accept gay marriage and reject that definition. I don't agree with that but that is reality. The WHOLE POINT of legislating gay marriage is to declaw the homophobia and give the marriages teeth, so that bigots don't get to deny you the right to hospital visitations, or to kiss in public, or to have sex at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:20
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Why do you want government involved in your personal relationship? You've like, never been in any kind of long term relationship where you at least mentally thought about marriage even at least to yourself have you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:21
|
|
|
Riptor posted:jrodefeld please explain how contracts have any power without any sort of governing body Well, yes government would be involved to the extent of enforcing contracts just like any other contract. But people sign contracts all the time that are enforceable by law that many Americans would object to. That doesn't make them less valid. We don't have a national vote on whether this kind of contract or these terms are acceptable to "society", we just acknowledge that two adults or groups of adults can come together and form contracts and agree to terms. It is entirely different than having society agree on a marriage definition. Surely you can see that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No I don't agree at all. You do understand that, like racism, you cannot legislate away homophobia. Of course I support marriage equality. But some people will simply not accept gay marriage and reject that definition. I don't agree with that but that is reality. You do understand that, like racism, you cannot legislate away theft. Of course I support property rights. But some people will simply not accept property rights and reject that definition. I don't agree with that but that is reality. I am looking at what is currently possible. What I am saying is that any group, whether they are property owners or any number of peaceful citizens want to form a union and sign a contract, should be permissible. We cannot rationally expect everyone to come forward and pledge support for any specific definition of property ownership nor should you expect this movement to end theft. Why do you want government involved in your personal property rights?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:22
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Don't you wonder why the worst instances of segregation occurred in public, government run institutions? In the private economy, segregation is extremely costly and the market punishes companies that exclude potential customers. http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/covenants.htm That's Seattle WA, not East rear end in a top hat GA. jrodefeld posted:Why do you want government involved in your personal relationship? dorquemada fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:22
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Well, yes government would be involved to the extent of enforcing contracts just like any other contract. But people sign contracts all the time that are enforceable by law that many Americans would object to. That doesn't make them less valid. We don't have a national vote on whether this kind of contract or these terms are acceptable to "society", we just acknowledge that two adults or groups of adults can come together and form contracts and agree to terms. The other thing is that you're still ignoring the issues of tax credits, hospital and jail visitation rights, child custody, the right to adopt...
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:23
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:In the private economy, segregation is extremely costly and the market punishes companies that exclude potential customers. Let's imagine that Chik-Fil-A refused to serve gays and that this is perfectly legal. Judging from the "support day" that was held recently, it's pretty obvious that there are people who will give a place more business if they refuse to serve certain people and thus give them a greater profit. Likewise, there are people who are saying they will refuse to buy from Nabisco because of their support for same-sex marriage. If the number of people who do this is greater than the customers Nabisco gains from supporting gays, then Nabisco loses money and goes out of business because they're not being bigoted enough. This would mean that Nabisco would have to be bigoted and exclude customers in order to maintain a profit. This also doesn't take into account that you can be racist and still technically serve people. If I open a restaurant and charge non-white people ten times more than whites, or force non-whites to eat in the back alley, then technically I'm not denying them service but I'm still being a loving racist and therefore the problem of segregation is not solved. So the belief that the free market can magically solve racism is pretty laughable honestly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:23
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:You just finished telling the thread that the evils of slavery and segregation were caused by local and state governments, not the public living in those areas. Lynchings were part of a wide-scale, organized movement to prevent black people from achieving equality and terrify them into submission. I never said that slavery and segregation weren't caused by public acceptance. They were overwhelmingly caused by public acceptance. My point was that government should have been protecting the rights of blacks far earlier than they did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:24
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I never said that slavery and segregation weren't caused by public acceptance. They were overwhelmingly caused by public acceptance. My point was that government should have been protecting the rights of blacks far earlier than they did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I never said that slavery and segregation weren't caused by public acceptance. They were overwhelmingly caused by public acceptance. My point was that government should have been protecting the rights of blacks far earlier than they did. And when they didn't, what should have happened? Oh, yes, intervention by federal courts...
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Well, yes government would be involved to the extent of enforcing contracts just like any other contract. But people sign contracts all the time that are enforceable by law that many Americans would object to. That doesn't make them less valid. We don't have a national vote on whether this kind of contract or these terms are acceptable to "society", we just acknowledge that two adults or groups of adults can come together and form contracts and agree to terms. If only there were some sort of standard contract that could be written up for people wanting to enter a legal relationship with a romantic partner. Some sort of agreement that any two consenting adults could sign designating their consent to the arrangement. Hell, to solve potential legal issues that might arise around financial or other concerns, some sort of preemptive judicial review could take place, so that anyone who signed such an agreement would not have to hash out these details individually but could collectively refer to a body of case law and a legal framework when questions regarding the contract come up. Some sort of, I don't know, certificate, or license, that wraps up all these things together and says to any third party "Hey, we have a legal relationship identical what some people might call a 'marriage'".
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:28
|
|
|
quote:There is plenty more where that came from. I have mountains of evidence to support my claims and I know Civil War history very well. From what I gather, it doesn't seem you have even broached the subject in an even cursory manner. "I have mountains of papers by my favorite Rand-obsessed Libertarian hacks, and you obviously know nothing."  Edit: \/\/\/ Wow. You know what, I'll just cut everything out of this post except this one part. He's not worth taking up the rest of the space for. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:29
|
|
|
Guys he cited Freep as a source, he legitimately brought Free Republic as a source holy poo poo the looking glass is miles behind us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:33
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Is your stance seriously 'it's work, gently caress it'? Like, yea bro bigots are gonna fight it, removing a national debate won't make them stop hating me, my state is still gonna have no legal protection for me if someone beats me to death and claims I hit on him and he got the gay panic, why should we let them win? No and I said I am not really opposed to the state by state trend towards legalizing gay marriage. I just personally don't want the government involved in my heterosexual relationships. I would assume at least some gay couples feel the same way. And what state law is going to allow someone to beat you to death and get away with the excuse that you were hitting on them? That is absurd. No one would tolerate that. If you want to continue on this path to marriage equality I am perfectly fine with that. I support your cause. I just think that government has no business in marriage in the first place. Do you accept that there are some people who personally see a definition of marriage that does not include gay couples and they are not necessarily bigots? I have heard people honestly say that they support equality but they personally think marriage is primarily an institution that supports the raising of a child and thus is the purview of heterosexual couples. I don't agree with that but some people are religious and they have a religious tradition of marriage that is different from a secular tradition. And so forth. I think that we will have disagreements about the definition of a word like "marriage" regardless of homophobes and bigots that want to subjugate gays. I am just putting forward an alternative idea that deserves more exposure. I think it is a fine solution. Why do we need government in more areas of our lives?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:34
|
|
|
Riptor posted:
I've already answered this. For everyone here, THIS IS THE ANSWER: Government should be involved to enforce a contract just like any other contract. You can draft a contract saying you are marrying a loving tree for all I care. And as absurd as something like that might me to most people, you should be allowed to do that. A polygamist couple should be able to draft a contract calling their relationship a marriage. And the same thing for gay couples and straight couples. This doesn't mean that government is involved in defining marriage. Quite the opposite. Anyone can use any definition of marriage and any terms as long as two or more consenting adults are participating. What is wrong with that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:38
|
|
Oh goddrat idiot just answer the question that me and at least two other people have asked about how contracts can work without an overseeing body
|
jrodefeld posted:I just personally don't want the government involved in my heterosexual relationships. I would assume at least some gay couples feel the same way. "As some who has all his civil rights recognized by the government, let me tell you why this isn't important..." jrodefeld posted:And what state law is going to allow someone to beat you to death and get away with the excuse that you were hitting on them? That is absurd. No one would tolerate that. "‘Gay Panic’ Defense Results in Mistrial for Teen Who Killed Classmate Prosecutors are scrambling to arrange another trial for a teenager who shot and killed a gay classmate after the first ended in a mistrial. Seventeen-year-old Brandon McInerney, then 14, shot 15-year-old Larry King twice in the head in the middle of class. According to a friend’s testimony, McInerney decided to bring a gun to school after King regaled in him the hallway with, “What’s up, baby?” He pulled the trigger shortly after hearing that King was considering changing his name to Latisha. Jurors had no doubt that McInerney killed King. What they could not determine was the degree of the offense — was it manslaughter or homicide? The disagreement stems from the defense’s argument that McInerney was responding to persistent advances from King. Defense lawyers argued that King had embarrassed McInerney repeatedly with sexual advances, painting a picture of McInerney as an intelligent young man abused by his family and harassed at school. They also brought in classmates and teachers to testify that King’s effeminate behavior and dress was distracting to other students." http://campusprogress.org/articles/gay_panic_defense_results_in_mistrial_for_teen_who_killed_classmate/
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:38
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If you are honestly attempting to critique me on this point, I want you to read this short article and tell me what it gets wrong historically: That said, I'll fight any attempt to disenfranchise libertarians, any attempt to round them up or expel them, or deny them civil rights. My commitment to the principles set forth in the Constitution is much stronger than my own personal biases. Now, pretend I'm Abraham Lincoln and was talking about blacks instead of libertarians. Personal racism in no way, shape, or form takes away from what he did with the Civil war and the Emancipation Proclamation. In fact, it makes his actions even more impressive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:39
|
|
|
No, I want the government involved, I want the government telling me "Hey Glitterbomber I see you're legally registered as a married man, look at this lovely tax break you get, and look at this easy way to file for benefits for eachother and join assets, look how nice and easy having the little box marked "Married" checked makes everything for you and the man you love so dearly. Your government is far from perfect, but in some regards, such as this, it does serve its people well!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:39
|
|
|
quote:"‘Gay Panic’ Defense Results in Mistrial for Teen Who Killed Classmate Holy poo poo, I thought they got rid of gay panic defense. D:
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
Repeating from earlier in the thread: The other thing is that you're still ignoring the issues of tax credits, hospital and jail visitation rights, child custody, the right to adopt...
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:41
|
|