I am against homosexuality, gay marriage, and civil unions.

[actsnoblemartin]

do you feel the same way about jew hating nazis? is it true bigotry to believe that THEY are wrong about their opinions regarding jews? Im betting your answer changes when your identity becomes the target. Ready to TOLORATE a state full of jew hating southerners who you think is wrong for their beliefs?

me: Im confused, your comparing someone who is against homosexuality to a neo-nazi?. Their are people who hate blacks, jews, whites, Asians, and hispanics. I think they are wrong, but they are entitled to their opinion. m not gonna turn into the thought police, and put em in jail for that.

my take on gay marriage and the idea that equality is "forcing it in your face" is this:

me: Thats your problem, why should anyone flaunt. This applies for straight, gay, black, white, blue, green and orange. Why does anyone need to validate their relationship to me?. I am just as opposed to a straight couple, or a white couple, making out in my face, as i would to a gay couple or interracial couple.


of you dont agree with their lifestyle then dont go fuck another man. Ive yet to see a single strait dude being dragged, kicking and screaming, into a park restroom and forced to suck a dick just because gays want to get married.

me: when did i say, gays force me to suck dick or become gay?


perhaps all the archie bunkers in this thread can tell me if THIS MOVIE flaunted interracial unions in your face too...

me: you know, whites are not the only people, who are capable of being against interracial relationships, I knew a black teacher who was against interracial relationships. Calm down a bit, alot of people, not including me, are against interracial marriage, and they represent many non-whites too.

tell me... does THIS make you archie bunkers start to itch and squirm too?

me: you need to get off your high horse and calm down

 

[jillian]

But it is the radicals that appear to set the stereotype for their detractors to use to label ALL.

If people are applying stereotypes, then that's their problem, not the people they're stereotyping.

 

[Gunny]

If people are applying stereotypes, then that's their problem, not the people they're stereotyping.

I'll try to keep THAT in mind.

"Too bad the right talks about small government but thinks government belongs in the bedroom."

 

[jillian]

I'll try to keep THAT in mind.

"Too bad the right talks about small government but thinks government belongs in the bedroom."

HEh.....

 

[roomy]

If you don't know, please refrain from trying to apply one to the other.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

What is wrong with believing that life is precious, and that abortion is the taking of an unborn child.

I'll try to keep THAT in mind.

"Too bad the right talks about small government but thinks government belongs in the bedroom."

 

[Bullypulpit]

What is wrong with believing that life is precious, and that <b>abortion is the taking of an unborn child</b>.

Because it's not..."the taking of an unborn child".

 

[maineman]

What is wrong with believing that life is precious, and that abortion is the taking of an unborn child.

Nothing is wrong with believing that. What is wrong is not allowing others their beliefs. you are entitled to your belief, no doubt. Other people are entitled to believe something different than that.

 

[Shogun]

I dont remember the bible saying whites cant marry blacks, but i am a novice at best when it comes to the bible.
I truly believe comparing interracial marriage to gay marriage is a like comparing apples in oranges.
The most truly fair way to settle this issue, would be, how about states decide . Do we need the government solving everything?
you could even let cities decide for themselves, if san francisco wants gay marriage, fine with me. and more conservative cities could say no, but i doubt risco would be the only liberal city to say yes.
Whats the problem. It doesnt matter where you start, only where you finish.
Im all open to comprimise.

Id bet that someone desperate to rationalize bigotry WOULD pretend that social restrictions to gays are totally different than social restriction for blacks or any other minority group.

I assure you that anyone who can remember the 1980s in America will have a hard time denying the direct correlation between the treatment of gays now and blacks then.

Again, if you dont agree with homosexuality then dont go suck a cock. Can you point me to a single example of a homosexual union having ANY adverse effect on strait people? I mean, IVE ALREADY POSTED MY HISTORIC REFERANCE TO GAY SAMURAI CULTURE...

would anyone else care to respond in kind?

 

[Shogun]

me: you need to get off your high horse and calm down

you need to answer the question, archie.. go ask your dad how he felt the first time he saw a black man kissing a white woman on the television.

 

[Vintij]

77&#37; of US adults claim to be christian, about 20% claim to be Catholic, and about 1% claim to be islam. The top 3 religions in north america all follow the same belief about homosexuality in a very similar bible. So when you take into account that there is a chance that 3 out of 4 voters in america are thinking about pleasing god when they vote on homosexual marriage, then yes religion does have a huge hand in the future of homosexuals.

Moreover, in response to tolerating homosexuals. Lets assume you are religious, well your new testamen states that you must tolerate all religions, and all people. Why is homosexuality any different. Now lets assume you are not religious, well your in the united states, and if you dont tolerate civil rights of gays, well why should they tolerate your love affair with guns for instance. Why should homosexuals tolerate your love of women if you dont tolerate their love of same sex partners? And if they are religious, why is it anyones business if gays get married in a church or not?

If your going to stop gays from getting married in a church, your denying them their religion, as well as hypocritically accepting inter racial marriage.

As far as government, well if they dont tax churchs and dont judge religion, what are they doing debating over homosexual marriage? Its non-profitable, and it does not effect the state of the union or the economy. The days of hate are over, this should not even be an issue for 08 but unfortunately it is for 77% of America because a little book that they read half of, tells them it is.

We dont have brains for looks. Sometimes we are suppose to use them.

 

[maineman]

It should be noted that Strom Thurmond - the noted racist praised by Trent Lott - ran for the presidency in 1948 as a "Dixiecrat" because the democratic party had done an about face on tacitly condoning segregation and abruptly became the party seeking to abolish segregation and institutionalized racial bigotry.

One of the planks of the Dixiecrat party was the banning of interracial marriage.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It should be noted that Strom Thurmond - the noted racist praised by Trent Lott - ran for the presidency in 1948 as a "Dixiecrat" because the democratic party had done an about face on tacitly condoning segregation and abruptly became the party seeking to abolish segregation and institutionalized racial bigotry.

One of the planks of the Dixiecrat party was the banning of interracial marriage.

Bold part is pure fabrication as used in this statement. You have been called on it before.

 

[Shogun]

Bold part is pure fabrication as used in this statement. You have been called on it before.

Lott apologizes for Thurmond comment

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/lott.comment/

"A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past," Lott said. "Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement."

 

[mattskramer]

Bold part is pure fabrication as used in this statement. You have been called on it before.

Strom Thurmond was certainly a racist at one time.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0107-04.htm

A racist bigot, he may never have actually donned the white hood and cloak, but he committed the legislative equivalent for decades...

When Harry Truman insisted that the Democratic Party embrace the cause of civil rights at the 1948 convention, Mr. Thurmond bolted the party and ran for president as an independent. He took the South, but Mr. Truman took the nation.

He fought school desegregation tooth and claw. In 1957, in an attempt to defeat civil-rights legislation, he embarked on the longest filibuster in Senate history: 24 hours 18 minutes. When Lyndon Johnson nominated Thurgood Marshall as the first black justice of the Supreme Court in 1967, Mr. Thurmond tormented him at the confirmation hearing by asking 60 arcane legal questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

Thurmond's political career began the days of Jim Crow laws, when South Carolina strongly resisted any attempts at integration. Running as a Democrat, Thurmond was elected Governor of South Carolina in 1946 and supported the state's segregation laws. In 1948, after President Harry S Truman desegregated the US Army and proposed the creation of a permanent FEPC, Thurmond became a candidate for President of the United States on the third party ticket of the Dixiecrat Party, which split from the national Democrats over the proposed constitutional innovation involved in federal intervention in segregation. Thurmond carried four states and received 39 electoral votes. One 1948 speech, met with cheers by supporters, included the following:

“I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra [******] race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.”

If that is not an example of racism, then perhaps I don’t know what the word means.

 

[hjmick]

Do we really want to have a discussion about the history of racism in politcal parties?

 

[Vintij]

Do we really want to have a discussion about the history of racism in politcal parties?

No we dont. Its embarrassing for Americans that it took so long for equality, even though it clearly explains equality in the original constitution. Obviously that was the origin of hypcracy in the US, being a racist and a patriot is hypocracy.

 

[Gunny]

Id bet that someone desperate to rationalize bigotry WOULD pretend that social restrictions to gays are totally different than social restriction for blacks or any other minority group.

I assure you that anyone who can remember the 1980s in America will have a hard time denying the direct correlation between the treatment of gays now and blacks then.

Again, if you dont agree with homosexuality then dont go suck a cock. Can you point me to a single example of a homosexual union having ANY adverse effect on strait people? I mean, IVE ALREADY POSTED MY HISTORIC REFERANCE TO GAY SAMURAI CULTURE...

would anyone else care to respond in kind?

Obviously, you weren't around in the 1980s because the facts do not support your rhetoric. If you meant 1960's and before, you could have a point. By the 1980's, the cry of "racism" by blacks when to told no and the apologists who enabled them about any and everything were firmly entrenched in US society.

However, comparing a genetic trait with an aberrant behavior is bullshit, and if I was black, I would be incensed that people like you continue attempting to make the dishonest correlation.

 

[Shogun]

Obviously, you weren't around in the 1980s because the facts do not support your rhetoric. If you meant 1960's and before, you could have a point. By the 1980's, the cry of "racism" by blacks when to told no and the apologists who enabled them about any and everything were firmly entrenched in US society.

However, comparing a genetic trait with an aberrant behavior is bullshit, and if I was black, I would be incensed that people like you continue attempting to make the dishonest correlation.

I guess it is easier to CLAIM as much than to provide support for your opinion.. then again, I guess id better agree or face your "wrath"

 

[maineman]

Do we really want to have a discussion about the history of racism in politcal parties?

a better question, do we really want to have a discussion about the present and future of racism in political parties?

I had a meeting away from my office this morning and was driving back to work at around 11AM - a time I normally do not listen to talk radio, so I am not sure what conservative talk-jock was on, but I heard him blasting Lott for blasting talk radio for blasting the immigration bill. He pointed out that nearly all conservatives on and off the radio gave Lott a "free pass" on his "racist remarks" at Thurmond's B-day bash.... which is interesting considering, when it happened, so many on talk radio and on internet message boards, called it just a kind remark to an old man with no racist intent whatsoever. Seems like talk radio, anyhow, has decided to throw Lott under the bus and may now start to revoke that "free pass".

There is no doubt that the democratic party of the last half of the 19th century, and the first half of the 20th century was supportive of institutional racism. There is no doubt that the democratic party on the national level definitively rejected racism in 1948. There is no doubt that the sourthern wing of the democratic party held onto their racism even longer. There is also no doubt that blacks in America today overwhelmingly support the democratic party. And the cries of republicans to black Americans that they should vote republican because the democrats used to be racist fall on deaf ears, and really are not at all convincing when compared to the de facto implicit racism of TODAY's republican party.

If I were in the party that got 15% of the black american vote, I would try like hell to make the discussion all about the past and not the present, too!