View Poll Results: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I explained below why

    6 21.43%
  • No, I explained below why

    2 7.14%
  • Yes; I did not explain below why

    15 53.57%
  • No; I did not explain below why

    5 17.86%
  • Other

    0 0%
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 56

Thread: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

  1. #11
    Advisor Rising Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    United States of America
    Last Seen
    12-10-14 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    331

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    "Separate but equal" is inherently unequal because it divides people into groups with lines which some, if not all, cannot cross. This is a limitation on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" not to mention a couple the Amendments to the Constitution.
    The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

  2. #12
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,680

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun View Post
    "Separate but equal" is inherently unequal because it divides people into groups with lines which some, if not all, cannot cross. This is a limitation on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" not to mention a couple the Amendments to the Constitution.
    The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
    The question is now seems to be if it is "fair", since many laws are DESIGNED to be unequal; a prime example is the FIT code.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  3. #13
    Advisor Rising Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    United States of America
    Last Seen
    12-10-14 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    331

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    The question is now seems to be if it is "fair", since many laws are DESIGNED to be unequal; a prime example is the FIT code.
    Feed in Tariff? I didn't realize furriners deserved the same consideration as American citizens. Why do you think they should?

  4. #14
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,880
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Yes. If you have two institutions, policies, whatever that segregates based on any criteria when it comes to government laws it is unequal. It is treating one type of class of person as seperate than another class of people. Its like saying "you're not good enough to qualify for <insert whatever here>, but these other people are good enough". And that is exactly what religious people are saying when they try to claim that homosexuals should not be allowed a marriage.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  5. #15
    Advisor Rising Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    United States of America
    Last Seen
    12-10-14 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    331

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Yes. If you have two institutions, policies, whatever that segregates based on any criteria when it comes to government laws it is unequal. It is treating one type of class of person as seperate than another class of people. Its like saying "you're not good enough to qualify for <insert whatever here>, but these other people are good enough". And that is exactly what religious people are saying when they try to claim that homosexuals should not be allowed a marriage.
    Not all "religious people" believe that so blaming all "religious people" for these prejudices is unfair.

    Gay Marriage & Homosexuality - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
    Is &quot;separate but equal&quot; inherently unequal?-ssmarriage-1-jpg

    FWIW, I think the denial of marriage rights for gays is a violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause. Regardless what they think about gays or gay marriage, many Americans of all flavors are also seeing this as more of a civil rights issue than a religious one.

  6. #16
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,880
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun View Post
    Not all "religious people" believe that so blaming all "religious people" for these prejudices is unfair.
    You are correct. I err'd in saying "all religious people". I should have said "all religious people that are against making SSM legal". Thank you for your correction.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  7. #17
    Advisor Rising Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    United States of America
    Last Seen
    12-10-14 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    331

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    You are correct. I err'd in saying "all religious people". I should have said "all religious people that are against making SSM legal". Thank you for your correction.
    LOL. Close enough. I think more religious people than you think may go with their religious beliefs about the morality of homosexuality just as they do with adultery, but that they will tolerate it as a matter of law since the consequences of depriving fellow Americans of their rights ends up eroding the rights of all Americans.

    Are Americans wrong for voting their opinion when not supporting the adulterous-wannabe-President Newt Gingrich? "Sorry Newt, but you're not good enough to qualify for President". No, of course not. What would be wrong is if they voted to change the laws so that adulterers couldn't run for President or voted to stone them to death just like the Bible says.

  8. #18
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:36 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    24,753

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Zawisza View Post
    This popped into my mind during a discussion about gay marriages and civil unions in another thread. This question assumes that the system of segregation actually is "equal", ie that having inferior public services for blacks in the Jim Crow South was not "separate but equal".

    Thoughts?
    "Separate but equal" was the best that could be done at the time to keep the smashing of the atoms from happening: we'd done that once and it was not a good experience for anybody. Though a racist decision, we lived in a very fearful society; very Mesopotamian = vengeful God.

    Black people equaled big trouble; not becasue they were black, but because of what happened when they were around: read Matin Luther King. So thinking like that was more about preserving the peace than being "higher human beings".
    “The people do no want virtue; but they are the dupes of pretended patriots” : Elbridge Gerry of Mass; Constitutional Convention 1787

  9. #19
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,680

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Yes. If you have two institutions, policies, whatever that segregates based on any criteria when it comes to government laws it is unequal. It is treating one type of class of person as seperate than another class of people. Its like saying "you're not good enough to qualify for <insert whatever here>, but these other people are good enough". And that is exactly what religious people are saying when they try to claim that homosexuals should not be allowed a marriage.
    Why must males pass a different physical test than females for the SAME pay and SAME job classification in an "open gender" military job? Why allow different age limits for the right to vote and the right to bear arms? Why is it legal to get gov't retirement pay at age 50 (or younger), but a tax penalty is levied for anyone taking out their own private retirement before age 59 1/2?
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  10. #20
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,680

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun View Post
    Feed in Tariff? I didn't realize furriners deserved the same consideration as American citizens. Why do you think they should?
    Federal Income Tax (FIT) code allows for different tax due amounts for two citizens working side by for the exact same pay, based on personal and financial decisions that they made (and their ages).
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •