Black Civil Rights Struggle = Rights for Gays to Marry (huh?!?)

[Cold Fusion38]

I just don't know WHY PEOPLE CARE!!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Black Civil Rights Struggle = Rights for Gays to Marry (huh?!?) | Verum Serum


Key quote:


The history of blacks in the United States begins with slavery and continues on to various forms of societal discrimination that has included: denial of voting rights, denial of property ownership rights, denial of equity in education, denial of access to public facilities, denial of access to businesses, denial of equal access to public transportation, etc.

Homosexuals in the United States have had to endure…society’s refusal to allow them to change the definition of marriage.


Nuff said right there, the pro-sodomite forces still have to show how the two are the same.

I guess you are as ignorant about the law as you are of most everything else. What blacks suffered through in their time in America was not the basis for extending any rights to them. Suffering and circumstances do not make a case for equality although that can be an argument to show that equality is not attained.

Like blacks were at one time, gays are being treated as separate but equal.

 

[Sunni Man]

There is CLEAR evidence by Jane Goodall about homosexual behavior in primates so I couldn't agree more. So these people who think being gay is a CHOICE then they have to give an aweful lot of sentiance to animals.

It's makes sense that gays and their supporters would have to use studies on primates to try an justify homosexual behavier.

After all, what homosexual do is animalistic and basically subhuman.

So making comparisons between homos and lower animals is perfectly logical.

My hat is off to Jane Goodall on this one

 

[QUENTIN]

There is CLEAR evidence by Jane Goodall about homosexual behavior in primates so I couldn't agree more. So these people who think being gay is a CHOICE then they have to give an aweful lot of sentiance to animals.

It's makes sense that gays and their supporters would have to use studies on primates to try an justify homosexual behavier.

After all, what homosexual do is animalistic and basically subhuman.

So making comparisons between homos and lower animals is perfectly logical.

My hat is off to Jane Goodall on this one

Your personal problem with homosexual sex aside, you do understand that it's not criminal.

How do you address then the issue that homosexuals having a different set of rights and being treated unequally is legally unjustifiable for precisely the same reasons "separate but equal," segregation, and lesser rights bestowed to black Americans were?

Even if you don't like homosexual citizens, do you not agree that they are afforded the same rights and protections as any other citizen and therefore denying them the legal rights that come with marriage is an unjust and arbitrary infringement on their protected rights? If not, why not? You don't have to like all the consequences of a law to recognize its existence and validity. The argument for gay marriage isn't based on the morality of homosexuality that religious people are free to take issue with , but the legal status and protection of citizens' rights that the government is required to respect.

 

[Sunni Man]

denying them the legal rights that come with marriage is an unjust and arbitrary infringement on their protected rights?

No, it is not.

 

[bodecea]

I just don't know WHY PEOPLE CARE!!

There's nothing more American than getting all up in someone else's personal business.

 

[QUENTIN]

If not, why not?

No, it is not.

Still waiting for a justification. That you don't like gays is clear. That you have a reasonable argument for the law treating them differently on the basis of their sexuality, which is not criminal, or how their different treatment is not an arbitrary infringement of their rights that separates "citizens" from "gay citizens" without legal justification remains to be seen. The proverbial floor is yours.

 

[CurveLight]

In what world is this true?

Black Voting Rights = Gay Buttsex Rights.

In what thread does this question belong? Certainly not this one. Is there a question regarding the OP available or will we continue to see candidates running for the Mayor's office of Haggertyville?

 

[CurveLight]

There is CLEAR evidence by Jane Goodall about homosexual behavior in primates so I couldn't agree more. So these people who think being gay is a CHOICE then they have to give an aweful lot of sentiance to animals.

It's makes sense that gays and their supporters would have to use studies on primates to try an justify homosexual behavier.

After all, what homosexual do is animalistic and basically subhuman.

So making comparisons between homos and lower animals is perfectly logical.

My hat is off to Jane Goodall on this one

That's a false dilemma wrapped in a strawman dancing to the tune of a hasty generalization. Some tried to claim homosexual activity is unnatural and even though they never provided evidence there has been evidence provided it is not unnatural since nearly every living species on earth is known to engage in homosexuality and some even form monogamous life long relationships. Personally, I think it's a red herring to begin with so I usually avoid that predictable hoop to point out it doesn't matter if it's natural or not. Equal protection under the law is not a principle riding on the ontological rails of human behavior.

So let's say homosexuality is not natural and it is purely a choice. How would that negate the discrimination issued by the State every time it rejects a legal contract to two consenting adults based simply on what is between their legs?

 

[Mad Scientist]

In what world is this true?
Black Voting Rights = Gay Buttsex Rights.

In what thread does this question belong? Certainly not this one. Is there a question regarding the OP available or will we continue to see candidates running for the Mayor's office of Haggertyville?

Nice dodge!

The op doesn't like homos equating a "right to buttsex" with the Civil Rights struggles of Blacks.
If homos have rights then they can do better than compare or jump on someone elses bandwagon. The argument should stand on it's own.
Homo marriage isn't as popular as advocates want it to be so they want a judge to overrule the people and make it legal.
Good luck with that but in the meantime you will run into people who are against it. And calling them "homophobes" advances the argument not one bit.

 

[QUENTIN]

No one is looking for the "right to buttsex," everyone, gay and straight (straight people being the majority of people who practice anal sex) already has the right to consensually practice whatever sex they want with other adults of either gender. Sodomy laws have been repealed or are unenforced. It's the height of inanity to claim what homosexual civil rights advocates want is "the right to buttsex."

The reason it's quite comparable with the goals and struggles of the black civil rights advocates is because both groups were facing a situation where they were collectively denied certain rights based on an arbitrary and legally unsound differentiation (the color of your skin, your sexuality) that grouped them together as lesser citizens. Both groups want the exact same thing: to be equal under the law as the Constitution and 200+ years of legal precedent guarantee them, but as current practices do not uphold. As a legal issue, it couldn't be much simpler and clearer yet many seem to be intentionally obfuscating it rather than address that any way you look at it, making different rules for homosexual citizens than you do for heterosexual citizens is against the law and fundamentally no different than what was done to black citizens. Just because you don't like gays doesn't erase the fact that they're granted the same rights as anyone else and violating those rights is rather clearly illegal.

It doesn't matter whether you like it or not, it doesn't matter whether the public supports it or not (unless they are able to pass laws through Congress designating gay citizens as inherently different than straight ones, but that would be a dark day indeed for civil liberties and liberty in general), just as it did not matter that millions upon millions of people didn't like blacks and didn't support their civil rights. Because these people are citizens in a country with a Constitution that guarantees them equal treatment and protection under the law, the State is compelled and required to respect and assure those equal rights are granted which currently recognizing marriages between certain sets of citizens but not others fails to uphold.

If you're going to argue against civil rights for American citizens, you have to do that, you can't hide behind "buttsex."

 

[Mad Scientist]

If you're going to argue against civil rights for American citizens, you have to do that, you can't hide behind "buttsex."

I'm not arguing against Civil Rights for Americans. The OP stated that he doesn't equate Black Civil Rights struggles with Gay marriage "rights".

None of you Gay rights supporters have successfully made the argument for Gay Marriage either because it can't stand on it's own.

Why don't gays make their own church and get married there? Oh yeah, because they want to destroy heterosexual peoples' churches that's why.

 

[eagleseven]

Why don't gays make their own church and get married there? Oh yeah, because they want to destroy heterosexual peoples' churches that's why.

Gays already have their own churches...they're called Unitarians and Episcopalians. Only, they still cannot get marriage licenses.

This is why it is still an issue. Homosexuals can get the ceremony, but they can't get the legal status.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Why don't gays make their own church and get married there? Oh yeah, because they want to destroy heterosexual peoples' churches that's why.

Gays already have their own churches...they're called Unitarians and Episcopalians. Only, they still cannot get marriage licenses.

This is why it is still an issue. Homosexuals can get the ceremony, but they can't get the legal status.

Interesting. I wonder how many gay advocates even knew these churches existed?

The first one, Unitarians looks to me like the First Church of Liberalism. The Episcopalians look more reasonable to me, for what it's worth. I Googled the main pages of both religions.

Both of which don't appear to have been started by gays, they've just moved to include them.

My point was that Gays could start their own religion and church so that they could maybe someday be included. They could even make their own Commandments. But I don't think they want to do that because then they'd lose their ability to protest "Church and State" issues.

 

[rdean]

Denial of black civil rights was based on irrational stereotyping and blatant bigotry.

Denial of homo rights is based on the protection of society and the safety of it's citizens.

What damage has been caused by gays requiring social protection?

Seems to me the most damage caused by homosexuality are the reactions of the bigots. Think about it for a moment......imagine if all the whining about gays were to be suddenly stopped.....what actual damage is caused by gay people?

Civilized society is based family.

Family is the backbone of all civilizations.

Families are based on a man and a woman, plus any children that they have.

Homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle that breaks up families.

Homo marriage is an abomination that destroys the traditional concept of marriage.

When a society legalizes homo marriage and lifestyle.

It is a symptom of a nation and a culture that is in decay and dying.

That's why I call for the criminalization of homosexuality and all homos be arrested and locked up as criminals.

Uh, actually, gays come from regular families where not a single one was raised "gay". They just are. It's people like you denying gays that is breaking up the family. Don't you get it? It's YOU!

 

[eagleseven]

Why don't gays make their own church and get married there? Oh yeah, because they want to destroy heterosexual peoples' churches that's why.

Gays already have their own churches...they're called Unitarians and Episcopalians. Only, they still cannot get marriage licenses.

This is why it is still an issue. Homosexuals can get the ceremony, but they can't get the legal status.

Interesting. I wonder how many gay advocates even knew these churches existed?

The first one, Unitarians looks to me like the First Church of Liberalism. The Episcopalians look more reasonable to me, for what it's worth. I Googled the main pages of both religions.

Both of which don't appear to have been started by gays, they've just moved to include them.

My point was that Gays could start their own religion and church so that they could maybe someday be included. They could even make their own Commandments. But I don't think they want to do that because then they'd lose their ability to protest "Church and State" issues.

At least here in NY, homosexual families flock to the Unitarian and Episcopalian churches, and the the churches welcome them with open arms.

I don't know about the rest of the country.

Oh, and John McCain is Episcopalian

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Black Civil Rights Struggle = Rights for Gays to Marry (huh?!?) | Verum Serum


Key quote:


The history of blacks in the United States begins with slavery and continues on to various forms of societal discrimination that has included: denial of voting rights, denial of property ownership rights, denial of equity in education, denial of access to public facilities, denial of access to businesses, denial of equal access to public transportation, etc.

Homosexuals in the United States have had to endure…society’s refusal to allow them to change the definition of marriage.


Nuff said right there, the pro-sodomite forces still have to show how the two are the same.

I guess you are as ignorant about the law as you are of most everything else. What blacks suffered through in their time in America was not the basis for extending any rights to them. Suffering and circumstances do not make a case for equality although that can be an argument to show that equality is not attained.

Like blacks were at one time, gays are being treated as separate but equal.

Lies, gays are not fighting for equal rights, they're fighting for the rights to a special marriage suited for them, no more and no less so its ridiculous for faggots to co opt the black civil rights movements for their own personal agenda. Every American has the right to marry they just don't have the rights to special marriages suited for them, polygamists are one example. Faggots are not denied marriage, they just don't have the right to "faggot marriage."

 

[Mad Scientist]

At least here in NY, homosexual families flock to the Unitarian and Episcopalian churches, and the the churches welcome them with open arms. I don't know about the rest of the country.
Oh, and John McCain is Episcopalian

That's more negative than positive.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Faggots are not denied marriage, they just don't have the right to "faggot marriage."

Whut...

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Faggots are not denied marriage, they just don't have the right to "faggot marriage."

Whut...

Its simple mathematics, example, polygamists are not denied the right to marriage, just just cannot have polygamist marriages, the same with gays.