Why can't Americans at large handle gay marriage?

[mookie]

So let me make sure I'm up to speed. Pot heads and drinkers are lame & stupid and don't realize it, and anyone who isn't full on pro gay everything is a Neanderthal. Got it.

[Rowsdower]

Rick V preempted my bit. Why do Canadians hate the feelings of black and Hispanic people?

[Rick V]

Perhaps this thread should be titled "Why can't African-Americans handle gay marriage?" African-Americans, overwhelmingly Democratic and Leftist, are overwhelmingly against gay marriage and against pretty much most gay rights - especially adoptive rights. (Abortion rights too btw.) But its spoken of in hushed tones. The Religious Right and the Tea Party are ripped at every turn on stuff like this. Not African-Americans. Why do African-Americans get a pass?

Talk to gay African-Americans and they'll tell you of the open persecution in their community.

My take - if two people are in love and want to take that vow, good on 'em.

Black people are generally pretty socially conservative and religious. That's not spoken of "in hushed tones", everybody knows that.

B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.

"Knowing it" and getting slammed for it are two very different things. Yeah, no shit everybody knows that African-Americans are homophobic but they are not called on the carpet for it like the Christian Right or the Tea Party is. Not even close. African-Americans do not get ripped for their conservative social stances - despite the fact that their fellow so-called Liberals are the ones pushing their (the African-American) agenda. Ain't that a hoot?! They don't get ripped b/c they are off-limits. They are off-limits b/c if you dare criticise African-Americans you run a strong risk of being labelled a racist. THAT's why it's spoken in hushed tones. THAT's why you don't see any major news organizations doing report after report after report on how homophobic the black commumity is but you certainly do see those constant reports on the Christian Right and the Tea Party. THAT's why everybody knows it but doesn't slam 'em for it. People tip-toe around it.

And you know it.

[suttree]

{Marijuana] stimulates thoughts that are independent from the mainstream.

So does having Schizophrenia. So does huffing glue.

ahh good point

[Tuxedo T-shirt]

Perhaps this thread should be titled "Why can't African-Americans handle gay marriage?" African-Americans, overwhelmingly Democratic and Leftist, are overwhelmingly against gay marriage and against pretty much most gay rights - especially adoptive rights. (Abortion rights too btw.) But its spoken of in hushed tones. The Religious Right and the Tea Party are ripped at every turn on stuff like this. Not African-Americans. Why do African-Americans get a pass?

Talk to gay African-Americans and they'll tell you of the open persecution in their community.

My take - if two people are in love and want to take that vow, good on 'em.

Black people are generally pretty socially conservative and religious. That's not spoken of "in hushed tones", everybody knows that.

B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.

"Knowing it" and getting slammed for it are two very different things. Yeah, no shit everybody knows that African-Americans are homophobic but they are not called on the carpet for it like the Christian Right or the Tea Party is. Not even close. African-Americans do not get ripped for their conservative social stances - despite the fact that their fellow so-called Liberals are the ones pushing their (the African-American) agenda. Ain't that a hoot?! They don't get ripped b/c they are off-limits. They are off-limits b/c if you dare criticise African-Americans you run a strong risk of being labelled a racist. THAT's why it's spoken in hushed tones. THAT's why you don't see any major news organizations doing report after report after report on how homophobic the black commumity is but you certainly do see those constant reports on the Christian Right and the Tea Party. THAT's why everybody knows it but doesn't slam 'em for it. People tip-toe around it.

And you know it.

1. Criticizing a group of people based on an immutable characteristic like skin color, especially a minority group, is generally not a very savvy political move. It does happen, by the way, even in the gay community - I linked to a Dan Savage blog post which I guess you didn't read, and I still don't agree with it. Black people tend to not support gay marriage, but their skin color has nothing to do with their feelings on gay marriage. Their religious faith, their income level, and the culture in which a lot of black people live tend to be less supportive of homosexuals - that's why black people as a whole tend to be less supportive of gay rights.

2. They don't get ripped by their fellow "so-called" liberals for the same reasons Republicans who support gay marriage don't rip "so-called conservatives" who don't want homosexuals to get married - they don't want to alienate an important group of voters. They'll tolerate black people's homophobia more than conservative homophobia because black people tend to vote for political candidates who end up supporting gay causes anyway. For instance, why do you only criticize black people for being homophobic while you ignore the Tea Party and the Christian Right? Because you're a Republican and those guys are on your side.

3. I don't see "constant reports" on the homophobia of the Tea Party and the Christian Right, especially these days. But I imagine you'd see even fewer of them, by the way, if every single one of your potential Republican nominees for President didn't support a national marriage amendment forcing all the states to only recognize "traditional marriage." No viable Democratic politician who was running for President in 2008 supported that idea. If you don't want Republicans to get criticized for being anti-gay, then stop making a bunch of homophobes your leading candidates for President.

[Tuxedo T-shirt]

{Marijuana] stimulates thoughts that are independent from the mainstream.

So does having Schizophrenia. So does huffing glue.

ahh good point

I detect a hint of sarcasm. Explain why it's a bad point, then. Do those two things I mentioned not stimulate thoughts independent from the mainstream?

[suttree]

So does having Schizophrenia. So does huffing glue.

ahh good point

I detect a hint of sarcasm. Explain why it's a bad point, then. Do those two things I mentioned not stimulate thoughts independent from the mainstream?

Sure they do, in the same way that Glenn Beck and the Westboro church do. And about as lucidly.

You're using scare-tactic arguments. Marijuana is not a dire mental illness, nor does it destroy your central nervous system and your respiratory system. It's toxicity level is so low as to make overdose a practical impossibility (FAR lower than tobacco or alcohol... or even bloody COFFEE). It's seeds are food, and can be used in plastics manufacture. It's fibers make incredibly strong fabrics and plywoods.

Of course, you start telling the truth about the plant (and what's up with making a plant illegal in the "home of the free" anyways?), and everybody rolls their eyes and makes hippie jokes. Never mind that they probably go home and do it themselves (42% of Americans have tried it, which is double the Netherlands where it's legal). Never mind that roughly as many Americans support the legalization of marijuana as do support the legalization of gay marriage (55% via Angus Ried in 2008).

[Tuxedo T-shirt]

My problem with your marijuana legalization argument is this: You want to say that it's not a harmful drug, not chemically addictive, not worth the cost of enforcement, that's fine. Those are good arguments and I don't take any real issue with it. Saying that marijuana inspires independent thought, however, or that it makes you think freely, or whatever your point was, strikes me as BS unless you have some data to back it up. Maybe it has that effect on *you*, that's great, but in my experience weed makes most people lazy and slow. When you start trying to ascribe magical powers to MJ usage, that it makes you think "independently" while alcohol makes you think like a conformist or whatever, then yeah, you're going to start hearing some hippy jokes. Sorry. Most potheads I know all sure seem to think in conformity if you ask me. Most people who enjoy MJ responsibly seem to think independently in direct proportion to their level of intelligence, of course the same is true of people who enjoy alcohol responsibly.

I don't think I oppose legalization of marijuana, I honestly don't have particularly strong feelings either way, so I guess in that sense I probably have a status quo bias of my own - I'd prefer the devil I know to the devil I don't - but if it was legalized tomorrow, eh, wouldn't make any difference to me.

Plenty of people support legalization of marijuana but a) it's not an important enough issue for people to run and win an election on, and b) marijuana is an effective law enforcement tactic to bust people they suspect are guilty of bigger crimes. If you think someone is involved in violent crime, but you can't prove it, if you can get that guy on an MJ possession, then at least he's off the street not committing worse crimes. Sure there are overenforcement problems, but if police used MJ possession as a means to target "real" criminals they couldn't otherwise catch for other crimes and left the casual "I smoke weed and watch Will Ferrell movies" guys alone, I wouldn't really have a problem with it.

[Gary Hâché]

b) marijuana is an effective law enforcement tactic to bust people they suspect are guilty of bigger crimes. If you think someone is involved in violent crime, but you can't prove it, if you can get that guy on an MJ possession, then at least he's off the street not committing worse crimes.

Not sure this holds water with me. Then you end up with thousands of people in jail for marijuana crimes. How can it be that the jails are overrun in the States, yet the police would use marijuana as a law enforcement tactic. I'd be much more worried about the guy who has just downed a 26er of JD than the guy who just smoked a joint.

[Tuxedo T-shirt]

Fair enough -I agree that drug laws are overenforced and I'd be much more worried about the Jack Daniels guy than the weed guy too. What I'm saying is, a lot of the times police know who the big criminals are. They know who they are but tying the really bad stuff to them is difficult. So if you can bust evil gangster guy on a drug charge and keep him off the streets so that he can't commit worse crimes, then that's probably a good thing.

Obviously there's potential for abuse there but I guess the issue is whether you want to take that enforcement mechanism away - you'd have fewer stupid prosecutions and fewer resources wasted, but you lose an easy way to potentially put bad people in jail.

I'm not totally sure what the answer is there either - like I said, the only reason why I think I'd lean in the direction of keeping MJ illegal is that I'd rather stick to the devil I know than the devil I don't, but I don't have strong feelings either way.

One thing I do think is that the relatively low danger of getting seriously hurt from using marijuana is actually a decent argument for keeping it illegal. I mean, let's accept the fact that people are going to drink and smoke. During prohibition, people started putting all kinds of weird shit in alcohol to make it fuck people up, and people got really sick, people died as a result of drinking rubbing alcohol or turpentine or whatever. People are generally only going to buy illegal booze if all booze is illegal, so you legalize it and you can make it a lot safer. Weed doesn't get messed with like that since it's so relatively easy to produce in large quantities to satisfy demand. Since there isn't a real risk of people using illegally made marijuana, you can use it as an enforcement mechanism.

[El Santo]

I agree with Tuxedo on pretty much every point.

I don't care either way if it's legal or not. I don't smoke, never have, but I don't necessarily think that there's a deep fundamental issue with it really. It could go either way and I really wouldn't have a preference. That said, I do tend to lean more libertarian, and my tinfoil space helmet that sends me libertarian messages says that it should probably be legal.

I do agree with Bob though. As fucked up and backward as it is to explain in this way, if there's a serious violent criminal out there, and the only way the police can get a foot in the door and really make some progress against him is via an initial possession/distribution charge, I am for it. I know that it's fucked. I know that it gets into an "end justifies means?" argument, but that's just the way I feel.

I don't think that pot stimulates progressive or genius thoughts in everybody. I believe that all it does is to make stuff that would normally sound strange or uninteresting suddenly sound plausible or like a good idea. That could go in either direction. If you're Carl Sagan and your stoned (he was an advocate for it) and you come up with "Pale Blue Dot", then awesome, maybe it helped, but you got yourself there already. If you're a dude in a studio apartment who is stoned and starts talking about a pair of pants that will automatically walk you to work, while this is technically a "progressive" or "creative" idea, its still pretty shitty.

But in closing, I know that essentially all of the smokers in here are great folks, who are smart, responsible, caring and otherwise law-abiding individuals. I have zero beef with you or what you're doing on your own.

[Machine]

HEY! This thread is suppose to be about those Evil Doers called 'the Gays' infiltrating our planet from a faraway galaxy. Spew your marijuana talk in another thread.

[Gary Hâché]

I do agree with Bob though. As fucked up and backward as it is to explain in this way, if there's a serious violent criminal out there, and the only way the police can get a foot in the door and really make some progress against him is via an initial possession/distribution charge, I am for it. I know that it's fucked. I know that it gets into an "end justifies means?" argument, but that's just the way I feel.

I think the reality is that most of the time the criminals could be pulled in on something a little more serious, such as meth, coke, crack, speed, whatnot....Marijuana gets a bad rap thanks to the police sending people to jail for it.

Now, gay people who smoke weed are the worst!

[Not_RMR]

I think your pre-text for keeping MJ illegal Tuxedo...is a bit flawed. The precise reason it was made illegal in the first place was so the gov could have a reason to round up "dangerous blacks and mexicans".

I hear dangerous criminals use text messages frequently, perhaps we should outlaw them? no...how about orange soda then?

[Tuxedo T-shirt]

I think your pre-text for keeping MJ illegal Tuxedo...is a bit flawed. The precise reason it was made illegal in the first place was so the gov could have a reason to round up "dangerous blacks and mexicans".

I hear dangerous criminals use text messages frequently, perhaps we should outlaw them? no...how about orange soda then?

It's not really *my* pretext - this is just what drug police in central Virginia have told me they use marijuana for, you know, "we're not trying to end marijuana usage in Virginia, we use it as a way to bust violent criminals. It's hard to prove involvement in violent crimes but easy to prove drug possession," that kind of thing. I'm just trying to list reasons why it might be good to keep it illegal, reasons the pro-legalization crowd have perhaps not considered. I really don't care. Do whatever. Anyway, addressing your two examples - both of those things are already legal and are not drugs. I would also guess that violent criminals do not text or drink orange soda in higher percentages than the rest of the population, but I bet they smoke weed in a much higher percentage.

I do take issue with people who really like smoking MJ who want to say that it expands their mind or whatever instead of just saying, "I like getting high." I like to drink. I know there are health benefits to drinking a beer or a glass of wine per day, but if there weren't, I'd still drink because I like drinking. I want alcohol and caffeine to remain legal because I enjoy those things. If you want to say, "I want to get high and I don't want to worry about getting in trouble for it," cool. If you want to make a good policy argument that it's not worth keeping MJ illegal because the costs outweigh the benefits and MJ is harmless and is good for people with glaucoma or whatever, great.

But if you're going to say, like suttree did, that the government is keeping marijuana illegal because they want to stifle independent thought, however, you're going to get some pushback. If the US government really wanted to stifle independent thought they'd make private schools illegal and get rid of the First Amendment to the Constitution. You don't need weed to think independently, no matter how much you enjoy it, and that's not why it's still illegal today either.