Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Every civil rights agenda starts out with the simple desire to be treated equally and not to be mistreated, but then a militant wing emerges that demands not just equality but superiority. Critical Race Theory is an example.
Regarding over-turning women's and gay rights, I have heard this Democratic outcry with every Republican nominee to the SCOTUS going back to John Paul Stevens. Did you know that 1973 Roe V. Wade was given to us by 5 Republican appointments? And one of the dissenters was a Democratic appointee. Imagine that! The case that solidly reinforced Roe was 1992 Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Note that Casey was a Democratic Governor and once again Republican appointees gave us the majority.
Too bad none in the liberal media ever learn from history! Fear-mongering is all they understand. And in a recent ruling, it was Republican appointees Roberts and Gorsuch that upheld LGBT rights in the workplace -- "a resounding victory from a conservative court." |
And there it is! I think it's the radical in-your-face thing that upsets many and causes a big push-back. For instance, my wife had a gay male friend, whom her whole family was close to and did a lot of activities with (he eventually died of AIDS), and she is very open-minded on the gayness subject. But she has repeatedly said that she opposes any of the radical, in-your-face kinds of displays that aggressively to want to push an agenda (opps, there's that word again
).
Then again, some would say that no civil rights movement gets much attention until there's a more radical display involved. (think women's suffrage movement or black civil rights in the 60s for instance)
Personally, I question if various things like LGBTQ+ or BLM are really even "civil rights" issues by definition. It seems to me that gay marriage is about changing the very definition of marriage that's been solidly in place for thousands of years (i.e., between a man and a woman). Isn't this akin to just wanting to rename a dog as a cat? And BLM seems to be solely based upon an assumption that there is widespread, systemic racism in America's police forces, even though no one has produced empirical, peer reviewed studies demonstrating that this thunderous postulation is true (see the thread on that topic, also in the Alternative Topics section of this forum).
So it appears like the thing to do, if you want to get traction on something, is to say, "It's all about civil rights!" and label those who question it as backward haters. That proclamation then brings civilized discussion effectively to an end . . . (and as a consequence maybe that's when the more radical approaches are deemed necessary by those pushing the agenda)
It's all pretty ludicrous, but then that's Adam for ya!
