Gay marriage, Scopes Trial, Woe v. Wade

Gay marriage, Scopes Trial, Woe v. Wade | IF THE CONSERVATIVES AIM TO REPRESENT THE CONSTITUTION THEN WHY DO THEY WANT TO OVERTURN THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISIONS? | image tagged in memes,philosoraptor,supreme court,conservative hypocrisy,constitution,myrianwaffleev | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Philosoraptor memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
FOR THE SAME REASON THEY OVERTURNED SCOTT V SANFORD | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Conservatives didn't do that. Republicans did, but they weren't conservatives at the time. I'm also specifically talking about modern day conservatives.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
The principle is the same. There are those who believe in the virtues of liberty, and those who believe they have the right to force their will upon others.

Among other things, the SCOTUS' job is to interpret the Constitutionality of legislation. But they are human, and they don't always get it right. Scott v Sanford is one example, Roe v Wade is another.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
If the conservatives believe in liberty, then why do they believe in making laws against gay marriages and gender transitions?

i.imgflip.com/1zse9i.jpg (click to show)
reply
2 ups
BOB BECKEL IS A CONSERVATIVE ? SINCE WHEN ? | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
The first thing you should recognize, is that conservatives are not a hive mind. One of the reasons the GOP always appears to be in disarray, is because conservatives tend to be independent thinkers, and don't always come to the same conclusion on every issue.

There are a lot of different reasons why people oppose same-gender marriage, a common one is that they're afraid of the slippery slope; First this, then inter-species marriage, then who know what else. Once the precedent is set, all bets are off.

But I think the most common reason is that they are opposed to the normalization of something they believe to be an psychological or behavioral aberration. I don't think they care if you want to be an aberration in the privacy of your own home, with like-minded consenting adults, but they draw the line at being forced to accept it as "normal", and the instinct is to push back... hard.

Your meme is focusing on a completely different subject. The whole Muslim, Jihadist, and Muslim Jihadist thing is a very, very complex and layered subject, and I think it's irrational to try to distill it down to a handful of sound bites or quotes.

There are people on the conservative side who have some things completely wrong in my opinion. On the other hand, I think nearly everyone on the liberal side have almost everything completely wrong.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
About the opposition to the normalization of a psychological aberration, why the opposition? Not saying you're a particular member of this group, but I do wonder what the basis for the opposition is.

My meme is criticizing the people who were supposedly defending the constitution, yet are attacking people of other religions, rather than the religion itself.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Because "normalization" must be forced on people who do not consider this or that or whatever behavior to be "normal". And thus we have come full circle back to the question of which group of people want to force their views on others, by any means necessary, and which group prefers freedom of thought, belief, and speech.

As to the second part, you're going to have to clarify that for me. Are you criticizing them because they are attacking the religion as a whole and not the individual follower of a particular sub-doctrine within that religion, or vice-versa?
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
What about people who opposed the "normalization" of interracial marriage?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
I did upvote your William Shatner comment, and this one.
reply
3 ups, 3 replies
What about them?

When William Shatner kissed Nichelle Nichols on prime time television in 1968, a number of NBC affiliates in the south refused to air the episode. Nobody lost their jobs, protesters didn't throw rocks, nobody completely lost their minds. They were entitled to their views and thoughts about the issue, and everything worked out fine.

You don't force your views on other people, no matter how right you think you are, or how wrong you think they are. Simple as that.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
By would you defend them the way you seem to be defending people who "oppose the normalization" of homosexuality, which you referred to as an "aberration"?
3 ups
Here we go... *sigh*

I am defending people's right to have thoughts and opinions that some might consider unpopular or politically incorrect. While the left appears to be inclined to force-feed a particular world-view on everyone, because they have self-righteously decided that what they believe is right should be accepted by everyone else, by proverbial swordpoint if needs be. Ironically, the exact same thing the left regularly accuses Christians of doing.

Go back and re-read me, because I never actually stated my personal views. I am simply trying to elucidate to MyrianWaffleEV two things; First, how one can simultaneously support the Constitution and oppose a SCOTUS decision, and second; Contrary to popular myth, why most Conservatives value liberty, and most Liberals are inclined to enforce their views on everyone.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I would say that both liberals and conservatives are often guilty of "force-feeding their worldview on everybody because they have self-righteously decided that what they believe is right and should be accepted by everyone else."
3 ups
Individually, yes. I agree. I've said from the beginning that some individuals who self-identify as conservatives have it wrong, and some have it more wrong than others.

But you can't really dispute that in the last 30 years or so, it has become the agenda of the left to behave in this way. The ever increasing demand to punish people because of what they think or believe is coming predominantly from that side.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I would agree that many liberals do try to punish those who disagree with them. But I'm very reluctant to say that people on the left are doing it more than people on the right. If anything, I might say that more people on the left act too aggressively in trying to push their worldview on others, and that more people on the right have more of a victim mentality, taking things which are either benign (such as saying happy holidays instead of merry Christmas) or based on a desire for equality (such as not wanting Christian business owners to discriminate against gay customers) as personal attacks against them or their religious beliefs.

I should also point out that your phrase "some individuals who self-identify as conservatives" seems to be leaving the door open for a No True Scotsman fallacy (well, they may self-identify as conservative, but they must not be an actual conservative). I'm not accusing you of saying this, just pointing out that the phrasing seems to point in that direction.

And I hope you are having a wonderful Thanksgiving!
2 ups
"I would agree that many..."

There is a formation in Sedona, Arizona called "Coffee Pot Rock". If you look at it from the west, it looks very much like one of those old percolator type coffee pots, hence the name. Observed from the east however, it looks nothing like a coffee pot at all, it doesn't really resemble anything. My point is, how you observe something can be dependent on the direction from which you are looking at it.

"I should also point out..."

I can certainly see where you're getting that from, but it's more of a case of 'Calling a tail a leg does not make it one'.

"And I hope you..."

And you as well.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
And I have an answer to that question: I think, while both sides are most likely guilty, that the left exercise free thought better than the right do. As far as I know, I have never seen the left bring a pepper-spray to a peaceful protest. Also...
i.imgflip.com/1zsflu.jpg (click to show)

I'm criticizing them for attacking the individual follower of religion. They state that Muslims ought to be cut out from being American citizens in the worst ways imaginable just for expressing their culture.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Pepper spray? No. Baseball bats, rocks, bottles, and whatever else they can get their hands on to attack the police, or any poor bastard that has a different view? Yes, frequently. Maybe you and I aren't watching the same protests.

Well, I am all for people being judged as individuals rather than based upon what social, ethnic, or religious group they may belong to. I am disinclined to say that all _________ are _________, just because one or a handful or even a majority of _________ happen to be (insert group name and trait into the blanks).

Having said that, I think Muslim Jihadists who also happen to also be American citizens are treated very differently from Muslim Jihadists who are foreign nationals, as well they should be. American citizens enjoy the rights and protections enumerated in the US Constitution, foreign nationals do not.

Again, I think there are people on the conservative side who go too far. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who famously said; "Anyone who gives up liberty for security, deserves neither." But I also happen to think the left has it even more wrong. You don't put yourself heedlessly and needlessly at risk out of a ill-considered desire to be politically correct. That's just mental.
reply
1 up
I've never seen any protests involve rocks or bottles, though I am aware that AntiFa protests can be quite radical.

I am for that as well.

I am not that politically correct, notably when it comes to religion, so I don't think I have much to say against your argument about political correctness.
reply
1 up
"They state that Muslims ought to be cut out from being American citizens in the worst ways imaginable just for expressing their culture."

Their culture is barbaric and murderous.
reply
0 ups
back then everybody was a conservative by today's standards
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Same sh!t, different piles. Both sides claim let any bill just come up for a fair vote till they're out of power and say they're just using whatever techniques necessary to defend values. Flip around for filibust. Both say let the SCOTUS make its wise decisions as long as they're in line with their platform - but if not, how ridiculous the court is packed with people from the other "side". How terrible what happened to Anita Hill, she needs her day in court - till the hypocrisy comes along defending Bill Clinton. Then just flip around the other way when it's Roy Moore. Double standards by both parties, ergo parties are not the solution, and you (on both sides) are blind as long as you believe differently.

It was never easier to manipulate people than by divide and conquer.
reply
1 up
Democracy creates political parties like smoking causes cancer. You are always going to have them. They may not always be the same ones, but they will always exist. The Republican party, the Whig party, the Federalist party, the Tory party, the Labor party, the Communist party, the Likud party, the People's Revolutionary party, every country has them, and as long as you have any system that involves democracy in any form, you always will.
reply
1 up
Hence why I don't align with the Democrats, nor the Republicans.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Because what you listed isn't in the constitution.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
And creating laws against them is?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
The federal government does not have the right, as per the constitution, to make laws pertaining to homosexuality, transgenderism, which bathrooms to use, etc. These are state regulated issues (laws passed at a state level). The federal government broke the law by declaring gay marriage to be legal. Barack Obama broke the law (among many others) when he passed a bill making gay marriage legal.

Creating laws against homosexuality? Which laws would these be exactly? I mean unless these laws you refer to are at the federal level, I don't know about them.
reply
0 ups
For a start, no laws were created to allow LGBT rights; the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to make laws barring LGBT individuals from having the same rights as others. Barack Obama didn't pass a law making gay marriage legal.

Before the Supreme Court began striking down anti-LGBT laws, Texas had an anti-sodomy law, which was struck down in the case of Lawrence v. Texas. Lastly, here in North Carolina we have laws created by radical officials that restrict the freedoms of transgender people. All actions against specific groups of people; all unconstitutional.

Because of the laws made in North Carolina and various other states with radical governors, I might as well move to Sweden.
reply
0 ups
Allow me to try to shed some light on the subject if possible. I am a 16 year old Junior in highschool who goes by the alias "Jack Smith" if you don't like my opinion then please just keep scrolling, I didn't get any sleep last night and I'm not in the mood for another fight. The way I see it, neither side is right or wrong, for every group that hates or wants to kick another group out of their territory there will always be another group willing to accept them with open arms, for that is human nature. While we should attempt to help these displaced persons as much as possible but we do not need to get violently involved until it escalates to the point where one side is genocidal at which we should get the guns and kill as many of the nazi f**kers as we can. So. There. Peace.
Flip Settings
Philosoraptor memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
IF THE CONSERVATIVES AIM TO REPRESENT THE CONSTITUTION; THEN WHY DO THEY WANT TO OVERTURN THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISIONS?
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back