To those who oppose gay marriage on the grounds...

[CriticalThought]

I did not even know what that meant. I had to go and look it up...

Definition: The term "institutional racism" describes societal patterns that have the net effect of imposing oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Jim Crow and the oppression of the Japanese on the west coast ended a long time ago.

ROFL! Institutional racism is still quite prevalant in our society. It is just that conservatives turn a willful blind eye to it. And I am most certainly referring to race.

Here are some questions I bet you have never considered...

Explain to me why African Americans in this country are far, far more likely to be...

1. Diagnosed with a mental illness
2. Prescribed a medication over therapeutic methods
3. Prescribed higher doses of medication
4. Prescribed injection medication over oral medication (injection is prescribed so that it may be administered involuntarily)

Also, why in this country are African Americans...

1. More likely to be searched by the police
2. Less likely to be given plea agreements if arrested
3. On average, given harsher punishments when sentenced
4. Less likely to be granted clemency or parole

Why is 46% of the prison population African American even though they compose 13% of the US population?

I'm not pulling these assertions out of my ass. There has been considerable study of institutional racism in this country. Every one of these assertions is backed up by studies which have found a disparity between how African Americans are treated by our health and legal system. The fact is that psychiatrists, judges, lawyers, police, etc. are prone to giving preferential treatment to whites whether they are aware that they are doing so or not. And these disparities exist in education, insurance, and so forth.

And you get heated under the collar because of affirmative action? Why? Do you believe we suddenly live in an ideal world where people are no longer systematically discriminated based on their race?

 

[Black Dog]

ROFL! Institutional racism is still quite prevalant in our society. It is just that conservatives turn a willful blind eye to it. And I am most certainly referring to race.

Here are some questions I bet you have never considered...

Explain to me why African Americans in this country are far, far more likely to be...

1. Diagnosed with a mental illness
2. Prescribed a medication over therapeutic methods
3. Prescribed higher doses of medication
4. Prescribed injection medication over oral medication (injection is prescribed so that it may be administered involuntarily)

Also, why in this country are African Americans...

1. More likely to be searched by the police <--- Because we are more likely to be committing a drug related crime?
2. Less likely to be given plea agreements if arrested <--- Because we have public assigned layers plus other things.
3. On average, given harsher punishments when sentenced <--- More repeat offenders.
4. Less likely to be granted clemency or parole <--- Higher rate of violent crimes.

Why is 46% of the prison population African American even though they compose 13% of the US population? If the "War On Drugs" was ended tomorrow, that rate would drastically drop to more reasonable levels vs pop.

I'm not pulling these assertions out of my ass. There has been considerable study of institutional racism in this country. Every one of these assertions is backed up by studies which have found a disparity between how African Americans are treated by our health and legal system. The fact is that psychiatrists, judges, lawyers, police, etc. are prone to giving preferential treatment to whites whether they are aware that they are doing so or not. And these disparities exist in education, insurance, and so forth.

And you get heated under the collar because of affirmative action? Why? Do you believe we suddenly live in an ideal world where people are no longer systematically discriminated based on their race?

You need to post some recent evidence to back up those claims.

I know about the legal system woes, but that is a really complicated problem based more on economic factors than race. In fact most of what you posted there seems to be more of an economic problem than a racial problem.

Someone on Medicaid is far more likely to have all the things you mentioned done, or someone at a free clinic.

Sources please.

 

[BDBoop]

we should further undermine its sanctity.

Why would gays being able to wed 'undermine it's sanctity'.

 

[BDBoop]

Okay so irregardless of the definition of a stupid word, as I understand it, you do support civil unions don't you?

I'm to the point where I'm ready to say fine. Call it a civil union. Then the lot of them can have a collective meltdown when all the new couples start announcing they are married. But it cannot be so, for they are unionized!!!

 

[Panache]

ROFL! Institutional racism is still quite prevalant in our society. It is just that conservatives turn a willful blind eye to it. And I am most certainly referring to race.

Here are some questions I bet you have never considered...

Explain to me why African Americans in this country are far, far more likely to be...

1. Diagnosed with a mental illness
2. Prescribed a medication over therapeutic methods
3. Prescribed higher doses of medication
4. Prescribed injection medication over oral medication (injection is prescribed so that it may be administered involuntarily)

Also, why in this country are African Americans...

1. More likely to be searched by the police
2. Less likely to be given plea agreements if arrested
3. On average, given harsher punishments when sentenced
4. Less likely to be granted clemency or parole

Why is 46% of the prison population African American even though they compose 13% of the US population?

I'm not pulling these assertions out of my ass. There has been considerable study of institutional racism in this country. Every one of these assertions is backed up by studies which have found a disparity between how African Americans are treated by our health and legal system. The fact is that psychiatrists, judges, lawyers, police, etc. are prone to giving preferential treatment to whites whether they are aware that they are doing so or not. And these disparities exist in education, insurance, and so forth.

And you get heated under the collar because of affirmative action? Why? Do you believe we suddenly live in an ideal world where people are no longer systematically discriminated based on their race?

There is a subculture which glorifies criminal activity in which blacks are overrepresented. My money says a black guy in a suit and tie will be treated better by law enforcement than a white guy sporting gang colours and decked out with bling.

 

[CriticalThought]

There is a subculture which glorifies criminal activity in which blacks are overrepresented. My money says a black guy in a suit and tie will be treated better by law enforcement than a white guy sporting gang colours and decked out with bling.

Have you considered that such a subculture exists as a result of the greater incarceration and so forth of African Americans? Furthermore, how is your statement any different than blaming the victim? Are you going to say next that women deserve to be raped for dressing provocatively?

It doesn't really matter thought. Your argument has been proven false time and time again. The show, "What Would You Do?" actually did a segment where as an experiment they had a bunch of rowdy white teenagers vandalizing a car in a parking lot located in a public park. The teenagers were able to continue for a long, long time and nobody called the police. They then replaced the white teenagers with black teenagers and they had 3 police calls in less than 15 minutes.

In another case, police did a study where they left a car parked in parking lots with 4 men just sitting in it. When all the men were white, they were never searched no matter where they parked. When all the men were black, they were readily searched.

More searches means more arrests regardless of what racial group you search, so when blacks are so overrepresented in searching, it shouldn't be a surprise when they are overrepreseted in arrests.

 

[Panache]

Have you considered that such a subculture exists as a result of the greater incarceration and so forth of African Americans?

Yes I have considered it. In fact, I suspect that is a major contributing factor along with the disproportionate socio-economic spread. Certainly racial profiling used to play a very large role in incarceration rates, so it makes sense that it would lead to such a culture, but now the culture seems to continue the cycle moreso than any actual racism.

Furthermore, how is your statement any different than blaming the victim?

My statement is different from blaming the victim because I am asserting the existence of a cultural bias which from my understanding seems to be mis-characterized as a racial bias. It has nothing to do with blaming the victim.

Are you going to say next that women deserve to be raped for dressing provocatively?

Why would I say that? I'm not sure you really grasp the concept of analogy.

Here is a better analogy. You assert that rapists target people who dress provocatively because less than 50% of the the US population dress provocatively, whereas over 75% of rape victims dress provocatively.

I challenge the assertion by saying that rapists are actually targeting women, and that the overrepresentation of provocative dress among rape victims has to do with the overrepresentation of provocative dress among women.

It doesn't really matter thought. Your argument has been proven false time and time again. The show, "What Would You Do?" actually did a segment where as an experiment they had a bunch of rowdy white teenagers vandalizing a car in a parking lot located in a public park. The teenagers were able to continue for a long, long time and nobody called the police. They then replaced the white teenagers with black teenagers and they had 3 police calls in less than 15 minutes.

Disturbing, but on it's own insufficient to confirm widespread institutional racism. It is a single instance on a television show which relies on sensationalism to stay on the air. I want to see actual studies that demonstrate racism when corrected for cultural and socio-economic factors.

In another case, police did a study where they left a car parked in parking lots with 4 men just sitting in it. When all the men were white, they were never searched no matter where they parked. When all the men were black, they were readily searched.

More searches means more arrests regardless of what racial group you search, so when blacks are so overrepresented in searching, it shouldn't be a surprise when they are overrepreseted in arrests.

Do you have a link to the studies? If these studies were recent, and if they had a large enough sample to produce statistically significant results, then that would certainly be strong evidence to support the continued existence of institutional racism.

 

[CriticalThought]

I want to see actual studies that demonstrate racism when corrected for cultural and socio-economic factors.

Exactly how do you "correct" for cultural and socio-economic factors? Racism is deeply embedded in culture. It's a ridiculous standard to apply to burden of proof. In other words, you are arguing that no matter what evidence I present, you will disqualify it as being marred by cultural factors.

 

[Panache]

Exactly how do you "correct" for cultural and socio-economic factors? Racism is deeply embedded in culture. It's a ridiculous standard to apply to burden of proof. In other words, you are arguing that no matter what evidence I present, you will disqualify it as being marred by cultural factors.

No. People correct for these factors all the time. For example, provide me with some statistics that black millionaires are arrested for insider trading and embezzlement proportionately more than white millionaires, or that proportionately more middle class black people are arrested for bank fraud than middle class white people.

 

[Deuce]

Why would gays being able to wed 'undermine it's sanctity'.

Because if I'm married and two other dudes get married, I wouldn't love my wife anymore. It's physics, you can't argue with it.

 

[Jerry]

And before you pull out the sanctity of marriage thing, the Divorce rate is over 50% (Could be wrong?) in the states. Not exactly much sanctity left there, is there.

As part of that 50% I can tell you that being divorced doesn't mean either person disrespects the sanctity of marriage. In my case, I don't want to be divorced, but she does because she's bat-**** crazy (manic depressive + bi-polar) with a dash of diagnosed PTSD and "drug induced psychosis" from long-term high-speed painkillers and anti-depressants.

Not only those who value the sanctity of marriage marry, and not everyone who divorces disrespects that sanctity.

Just say'n :2wave:

 

[BDBoop]

As part of that 50% I can tell you that being divorced doesn't mean either person disrespects the sanctity of marriage. In my case, I don't want to be divorced, but she does because she's bat-**** crazy (manic depressive + bi-polar) with a dash of diagnosed PTSD and "drug induced psychosis" from long-term high-speed painkillers and anti-depressants.

Not only those who value the sanctity of marriage marry, and not everyone who divorces disrespects that sanctity.

Just say'n :2wave:

I'm sorry, but that still leaves a metric ****-ton of people who do. Divorce isn't the only means for destroying the sanctity of marriage. Calling one's "Dearly Beloved" Bat**** crazy isn't exactly contributing to the health and well-being of the institution.

 

[Jerry]

I'm sorry, but that still leaves a metric ****-ton of people who do. Divorce isn't the only means for destroying the sanctity of marriage. Calling one's "Dearly Beloved" Bat**** crazy isn't exactly contributing to the health and well-being of the institution.

Well, she stopped being my dearly beloved when she started cheating on me, so I guess while I still value the sanctity of marriage, she clearly doesn't. Hey, that 50% divorce rate, does it account for spouses who try to work things out or do you just assume both people are like "**** marriage"? A 50% divorce rate doesn't mean a 50% disrespect for marriage; in fact it could mean only a 25% disrespect for marriage.

Another angle here is the guy she hooked up with. Clearly he doesn't respect marriage either and neither of them will marry. How do your statistics account for that?

 

[BDBoop]

Well, she stopped being my dearly beloved when she started cheating on me, so I guess while I still value the sanctity of marriage, she clearly doesn't. Hey, that 50% divorce rate, does it account for spouses who try to work things out or do you just assume both people are like "**** marriage"? A 50% divorce rate doesn't mean a 50% disrespect for marriage; in fact it could mean only a 25% disrespect for marriage.

Another angle here is the guy she hooked up with. Clearly he doesn't respect marriage either and neither of them will marry. How do your statistics account for that?

And you still think that straights have a lock on the sanctity of marriage?

 

[Jerry]

And you still think that straights have a lock on the sanctity of marriage?

Ok, I left for Fort Benning a few days before you joined DebatePolitics, so given how sparaticaly I've consequentially been on this forum at all and how even less have I posted in marriage/abortion/religion forums to have offered my opinion on gay marriage for you to have read it, I have no idea how you think I ever claimed that straights have "a lock on the sanctity of marriage". That's not something I've ever said in my however many years I've been on this forum, let alone over the last 4 months.

You use the 50% divorce rate as though gays are not already a part of it. How many marriages have we read about where various public figures leave their wives and kids for a gay lover?

Born sexual orientation does not influence one's regard for the sanctity of marriage, and respecting marriage does not preclude a divorce.

 

[BDBoop]

As part of that 50% I can tell you that being divorced doesn't mean either person disrespects the sanctity of marriage. In my case, I don't want to be divorced, but she does because she's bat-**** crazy (manic depressive + bi-polar) with a dash of diagnosed PTSD and "drug induced psychosis" from long-term high-speed painkillers and anti-depressants.

Not only those who value the sanctity of marriage marry, and not everyone who divorces disrespects that sanctity.

Just say'n :2wave:

Ok, I left for Fort Benning a few days before you joined DebatePolitics, so given how sparaticaly I've consequentially been on this forum at all and how even less have I posted in marriage/abortion/religion forums to have offered my opinion on gay marriage for you to have read it, I have no idea how you think I ever claimed that straights have "a lock on the sanctity of marriage". That's not something I've ever said in my however many years I've been on this forum, let alone over the last 4 months.

You use the 50% divorce rate as though gays are not already a part of it. How many marriages have we read about where various public figures leave their wives and kids for a gay lover?

Born sexual orientation does not influence one's regard for the sanctity of marriage, and respecting marriage does not preclude a divorce.

I'm only responding to your two quoted posts above.

 

[Paschendale]

A marriage is a financial arrangement that supports co-habitation and child rearing. And it has been used historically to merge families. That's it. There's nothing moral or ethical about it.

 

[Black Dog]

A marriage is a financial arrangement that supports co-habitation and child rearing. And it has been used historically to merge families. That's it. There's nothing moral or ethical about it.

In others opinion it is more than that.

 

[The Baron]

That's right, Blackdog. Marriage is used to descrbe the intimate relationship that exists between Christ and His church.

 

[Jerry]

I'm only responding to your two quoted posts above.

Then please do so.

 

[Your Star]

That's right, Blackdog. Marriage is used to descrbe the intimate relationship that exists between Christ and His church.

And legally, that means crap.

 

[Jerry]

And legally, that means crap.

And economicaly, that means crap.

 

[Your Star]

And economicaly, that means crap.

And this is supposed to mean what?

 

[Jerry]

And this is supposed to mean what?

Now we're on the same page.

I was thinking the same thing about your "And legally, that means crap." That doesn't mean anything. Law is only one aspect of the social institution of marriage. Marriages can exist without the law, so....you weren't saying anything.

It's as though you don't know that marriage is a social institution and not "a strictly legal contract". Crazyness.

 

[Your Star]

Now we're on the same page.

I was thinking the same thing about your "And legally, that means crap." That doesn't mean anything. Law is only one aspect of the social institution of marriage. Marriages can exist without the law, so....you weren't saying anything.

It's as though you don't know that marriage is a social institution and not "a strictly legal contract". Crazyness.

The marriage contract provided by the State has nothing to do with any one religion, and trying to use religion as a reason to deny SSM provided by the State is unfounded. Marriage by the state, and marriage by the church are two completely different things. I can get a marriage by a church right now, it doesn't mean that it is a legal marriage.