Rep Steve King: Same-Sex Marriage Is ‘A Purely Socialist Concept’

[Neser Boha]

You're making the assumption that same sex marriage is a civil liberties issue. It's not that simple.

sure it is. If the assumption is that individual liberty is a primary concern of our culture then there is a logical relationship between the civil rights of minorities and the civil rights of gays. Indeed, we see a lot of the same rhetoric regurgitated in the same arguments against both.

You may see it as black and white, but there are plenty of gray areas in this debate. There are many in the religious community, specifically Muslims, that view homosexuality as an abomination. And there are still many who believe that many gays are that way because of physical and/or sexual abuse. Scientists have discovered certain chemical imbalances which might lead to homosexual tendencies. Imagine if a treatment is devised to counter this imbalance. You can't stop science. No, this debate is far from over.

From gays we can move onto ...

- Chocolate: Shock therapy
- Brown Eyes: Genetics; gas chambers
- Religious Nuts: Lobotomy; unconventional warfare
- Homophobia: Shock therapy; lobotomy
- Lefthandedness: Genetics; shock therapy
- Liking Sex: Surgery; Pavlovian conditioning; pharmaceuticals
- Cubism: Religion (see above)
- Modern Art: Extinction
- Politicians: Anarchism; extinction
- Sisyphus: Why bother? Sisyphus is happy.

Found the above on another forum and found it fucking hilarious

 

[rdean]

You're making the assumption that same sex marriage is a civil liberties issue. It's not that simple.

sure it is. If the assumption is that individual liberty is a primary concern of our culture then there is a logical relationship between the civil rights of minorities and the civil rights of gays. Indeed, we see a lot of the same rhetoric regurgitated in the same arguments against both.

You may see it as black and white, but there are plenty of gray areas in this debate. There are many in the religious community, specifically Muslims, that view homosexuality as an abomination. And there are still many who believe that many gays are that way because of physical and/or sexual abuse. Scientists have discovered certain chemical imbalances which might lead to homosexual tendencies. Imagine if a treatment is devised to counter this imbalance. You can't stop science. No, this debate is far from over.

How can you breath where you have your head?

You don't even believe in science. You believe in magical creation.

Hey, do you know any gays? Go ahead, tell me your best friends are gay.

 

[xsited1]

sure it is. If the assumption is that individual liberty is a primary concern of our culture then there is a logical relationship between the civil rights of minorities and the civil rights of gays. Indeed, we see a lot of the same rhetoric regurgitated in the same arguments against both.

You may see it as black and white, but there are plenty of gray areas in this debate. There are many in the religious community, specifically Muslims, that view homosexuality as an abomination. And there are still many who believe that many gays are that way because of physical and/or sexual abuse. Scientists have discovered certain chemical imbalances which might lead to homosexual tendencies. Imagine if a treatment is devised to counter this imbalance. You can't stop science. No, this debate is far from over.

One could argue that there are gray areas in ANY debate. But that doesn't minimize that you advocate the limitations of personal liberties based on unfounded concern or your own personal beliefs. I have beliefs too. should your liberty depend on the conformation to my beliefs? I don't care if christians, muslims, atheists, mormons, catholics, or whatever has an opinion about it. The personal decision for a man to suck another man's dick really has no repercussion for any of them. Your opinion of the root cause of homosexuality is a non-issue to personal liberty. If I diagnosed your genetic tendency to believe in a god down to a gene does that invalidate your faith? Should my opinion of the historic cultural downfalls of similar belief systems impede your prerogative to act how you will in expression of this faith?


But, we've seen what "science" you reference already. I invite you to post your evidence before i pounce so... Please, trade me the "Scientists have discovered" and "Many People who believe" for some links and actual names.

You always post a bunch of nonsensical and contrary garbage coupled with insults and expletives so it's obvious that you are just trolling, but I'll play your little game for now. For instance, you claim that I "advocate the limitations of personal liberties based on unfounded concern." Uh, no. There are camps from several different 'sides' who believe that it there is a very real concern. For example, if homosexual behavior is a result of physical and/or sexual abuse, the continuance of this behavior may be destructive. We just don't have all the facts. Furthermore, a chemical imbalance in the brain could be destructive. For example, most people would agree that depression can be destructive and be treated medically if possible. Who's to say that some homosexuals don't suffer from a similar ailment? Using the 'civil liberties' card is just another way to end the debate in this area. If you want to have gay sex, have at it, but marriage takes it to a new level that must be fully understood. Besides, I know several gay couples who are married, although I realize the benefits of being recognized by the State. Civil Unions can accomplish this.

You of all people should be concerned about the health and welfare of a society. If someone suffers from some ailment, they should get the help they need. It is not my place to act as a enabler for someone engaging in destructive behavior. The question is simply whether it is destructive behavior or not. You and others answer emphatically "NO!" I do not have enough information to answer one way or the other.

 

[Shogun]

You don't become an "enabler" by observing the autonomy of personal liberty. Your opinion of what is "destructive" means nothing just as my opinion of how "destructive" your flavor of beliefs have been historically means nothing to your personal prerogative to believe.

And, again, I'll have to ask you for your evidence in regards to your claims about this apparent concern that gays are either abused or imbalanced. Hell, sexuality isn't the mitigating factor there. MILLIONS of abused and imbalanced heteros prove this.


ps. not a single explicate in either post. eat my shorts.

 

[rdean]

You may see it as black and white, but there are plenty of gray areas in this debate. There are many in the religious community, specifically Muslims, that view homosexuality as an abomination. And there are still many who believe that many gays are that way because of physical and/or sexual abuse. Scientists have discovered certain chemical imbalances which might lead to homosexual tendencies. Imagine if a treatment is devised to counter this imbalance. You can't stop science. No, this debate is far from over.

One could argue that there are gray areas in ANY debate. But that doesn't minimize that you advocate the limitations of personal liberties based on unfounded concern or your own personal beliefs. I have beliefs too. should your liberty depend on the conformation to my beliefs? I don't care if christians, muslims, atheists, mormons, catholics, or whatever has an opinion about it. The personal decision for a man to suck another man's dick really has no repercussion for any of them. Your opinion of the root cause of homosexuality is a non-issue to personal liberty. If I diagnosed your genetic tendency to believe in a god down to a gene does that invalidate your faith? Should my opinion of the historic cultural downfalls of similar belief systems impede your prerogative to act how you will in expression of this faith?


But, we've seen what "science" you reference already. I invite you to post your evidence before i pounce so... Please, trade me the "Scientists have discovered" and "Many People who believe" for some links and actual names.

You always post a bunch of nonsensical and contrary garbage coupled with insults and expletives so it's obvious that you are just trolling, but I'll play your little game for now. For instance, you claim that I "advocate the limitations of personal liberties based on unfounded concern." Uh, no. There are camps from several different 'sides' who believe that it there is a very real concern. For example, if homosexual behavior is a result of physical and/or sexual abuse, the continuance of this behavior may be destructive. We just don't have all the facts. Furthermore, a chemical imbalance in the brain could be destructive. For example, most people would agree that depression can be destructive and be treated medically if possible. Who's to say that some homosexuals don't suffer from a similar ailment? Using the 'civil liberties' card is just another way to end the debate in this area. If you want to have gay sex, have at it, but marriage takes it to a new level that must be fully understood. Besides, I know several gay couples who are married, although I realize the benefits of being recognized by the State. Civil Unions can accomplish this.

You of all people should be concerned about the health and welfare of a society. If someone suffers from some ailment, they should get the help they need. It is not my place to act as a enabler for someone engaging in destructive behavior. The question is simply whether it is destructive behavior or not. You and others answer emphatically "NO!" I do not have enough information to answer one way or the other.

You bitch about me and then you spout the most ridiculous BS. Shame, shame, shame on your nasty self. The two sides you are talking about are certified psychologists and redneck morons. What side do you identify with. Everything you said is crap. There was no "debate'. What's worse, you spew your bile, and then complain that you were being "reasonable". How do you breath where your head is?

And you know several gay couples? At least you didn't lie and say they were your friends. And if you feel you are "friends", make sure you "help" them and tell then they are sick and chemically imbalanced and engaged in destructive behavior.

To me, destructive behavior is believing in magic and spirits and mysticism. Who could gullible enough to believe in spirits? Oh, nevermind. I know.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I've been trying to tell these idiots that about the democratic party for a while now. You'll find that facts are something the liberals here simply ignore.

So tell me, how blissful is it being ignorant?

I wouldn't know, I'm not a liberal.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You realize that southern states like GA didnt have their first republican majority until 2000 for the first time in 147 years?

And out of the last 5 last presidents, two were democrats from southern states.

So you BS excuse that democrats are not southern racist is just that, a big pile of BULLSHIT!

I've been trying to tell these idiots that about the democratic party for a while now. You'll find that facts are something the liberals here simply ignore.

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."

"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes - washingtonpost.com

"Black History Month" has been observed for 29 years, yet many blacks know little to nothing about the parties' respective roles in advancing or hindering the civil rights of blacks. How many blacks know that following the Civil War, 23 blacks -- 13 of them ex-slaves -- were elected to Congress, all as Republicans? The first black Democrat was not elected to Congress until 1935, from the state of Illinois. The first black congressional Democrat from a Southern state was not elected until 1973.

Democrats, in 1854, passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This overturned the Missouri Compromise and allowed for the importation of slaves into the territories. Disgusted with the passage of this Act, free-soilers and anti-slavery members of the Whig and Democratic parties founded the Republican Party -- not just to stop the spread of slavery, but to eventually abolish it.

How many blacks know that blacks founded the Texas Republican Party? On July 4, 1867, in Houston, Texas, 150 blacks and 20 whites formed the party. No, not the Black Texas Republican Party, they founded the Texas Republican Party. Blacks across Southern states also founded the Republican parties in their states.

Fugitive slave laws? In 1850, Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. If merely accused of being a slave, even if the person enjoyed freedom all of his or her life (as approximately 11 percent of blacks did just before the Civil War), the person lost the right to representation by an attorney, the right to trial by jury, and the right to habeas corpus.

Emancipation? Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War. In 1865, the 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it.

Civil rights laws? In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed giving the newly emancipated blacks full civil rights and federal guarantee of those rights, superseding any state laws. Every single voting Republican (128 of 134 -- with 6 not voting -- in the House, and 30 of 32 -- with 2 not voting -- in the Senate) voted for the 14th Amendment. Not a single Democrat (zero of 36 in the House, zero of 6 in the Senate) voted for it.

Right to vote? When Southern states balked at implementing the 14th Amendment, Congress came back and passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. Every single Republican voted for it, with every Democrat voting against it.

Ku Klux Klan? In 1872 congressional investigations, Democrats admitted beginning the Klan as an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control in Southern states. As PBS' "American Experience" notes, "In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tenn., in 1865." Blacks, who were all Republican at that time, became the primary targets of violence.

Jim Crow laws? Between 1870 and 1875, the Republican Congress passed many pro-black civil rights laws. But in 1876, Democrats took control of the House, and no further race-based civil rights laws passed until 1957. In 1892, Democrats gained control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and repealed all the Republican-passed civil rights laws. That enabled the Southern Democrats to pass the Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, and so on, in their individual states.

Civil rights in the '60s? Only 64 percent of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (153 for, 91 against in the House; and 46 for, 21 against in the Senate). But 80 percent of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House; and 27 for, 6 against in the Senate) voted for the 1964 Act.

What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables.

History is a wonderful thing, you should try studying it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It's a perfectly good reason why there should be a national lifting of bans on same sex marriage.

If we left things like civil liberties up to the states the south would still be stuck in the year 1850.

Exactly the same point I wanted to make. Thanks for doing it for me.

I'd just like to add.

What is it with people unwilling to extend the rights they are themselves enjoying to others? I will never understand that.

Marriage is not a right you idiot!!!

Homosexuals can get married and no one has said they couldn't. The only caveat is they have to marry someone of the opposite sex, otherwise it's a civil union and not a marriage.

 

[bodecea]

I've been trying to tell these idiots that about the democratic party for a while now. You'll find that facts are something the liberals here simply ignore.

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."

"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes - washingtonpost.com

"Black History Month" has been observed for 29 years, yet many blacks know little to nothing about the parties' respective roles in advancing or hindering the civil rights of blacks. How many blacks know that following the Civil War, 23 blacks -- 13 of them ex-slaves -- were elected to Congress, all as Republicans? The first black Democrat was not elected to Congress until 1935, from the state of Illinois. The first black congressional Democrat from a Southern state was not elected until 1973.

Democrats, in 1854, passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This overturned the Missouri Compromise and allowed for the importation of slaves into the territories. Disgusted with the passage of this Act, free-soilers and anti-slavery members of the Whig and Democratic parties founded the Republican Party -- not just to stop the spread of slavery, but to eventually abolish it.

How many blacks know that blacks founded the Texas Republican Party? On July 4, 1867, in Houston, Texas, 150 blacks and 20 whites formed the party. No, not the Black Texas Republican Party, they founded the Texas Republican Party. Blacks across Southern states also founded the Republican parties in their states.

Fugitive slave laws? In 1850, Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. If merely accused of being a slave, even if the person enjoyed freedom all of his or her life (as approximately 11 percent of blacks did just before the Civil War), the person lost the right to representation by an attorney, the right to trial by jury, and the right to habeas corpus.

Emancipation? Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War. In 1865, the 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it.

Civil rights laws? In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed giving the newly emancipated blacks full civil rights and federal guarantee of those rights, superseding any state laws. Every single voting Republican (128 of 134 -- with 6 not voting -- in the House, and 30 of 32 -- with 2 not voting -- in the Senate) voted for the 14th Amendment. Not a single Democrat (zero of 36 in the House, zero of 6 in the Senate) voted for it.

Right to vote? When Southern states balked at implementing the 14th Amendment, Congress came back and passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. Every single Republican voted for it, with every Democrat voting against it.

Ku Klux Klan? In 1872 congressional investigations, Democrats admitted beginning the Klan as an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control in Southern states. As PBS' "American Experience" notes, "In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tenn., in 1865." Blacks, who were all Republican at that time, became the primary targets of violence.

Jim Crow laws? Between 1870 and 1875, the Republican Congress passed many pro-black civil rights laws. But in 1876, Democrats took control of the House, and no further race-based civil rights laws passed until 1957. In 1892, Democrats gained control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and repealed all the Republican-passed civil rights laws. That enabled the Southern Democrats to pass the Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, and so on, in their individual states.

Civil rights in the '60s? Only 64 percent of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (153 for, 91 against in the House; and 46 for, 21 against in the Senate). But 80 percent of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House; and 27 for, 6 against in the Senate) voted for the 1964 Act.

What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables.

History is a wonderful thing, you should try studying it.

So, you are saying that the Republican Party today is the same party with the same platform as 100 years ago? And ditto for the Democrats?

Is that what you are saying?

 

[bodecea]

It's a perfectly good reason why there should be a national lifting of bans on same sex marriage.

If we left things like civil liberties up to the states the south would still be stuck in the year 1850.

Exactly the same point I wanted to make. Thanks for doing it for me.

I'd just like to add.

What is it with people unwilling to extend the rights they are themselves enjoying to others? I will never understand that.

Marriage is not a right you idiot!!!

Homosexuals can get married and no one has said they couldn't. The only caveat is they have to marry someone of the opposite sex, otherwise it's a civil union and not a marriage.

Loving v. Virginia disagrees with you on that.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival

 

[Lonestar_logic]

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."

"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes - washingtonpost.com

"Black History Month" has been observed for 29 years, yet many blacks know little to nothing about the parties' respective roles in advancing or hindering the civil rights of blacks. How many blacks know that following the Civil War, 23 blacks -- 13 of them ex-slaves -- were elected to Congress, all as Republicans? The first black Democrat was not elected to Congress until 1935, from the state of Illinois. The first black congressional Democrat from a Southern state was not elected until 1973.

Democrats, in 1854, passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This overturned the Missouri Compromise and allowed for the importation of slaves into the territories. Disgusted with the passage of this Act, free-soilers and anti-slavery members of the Whig and Democratic parties founded the Republican Party -- not just to stop the spread of slavery, but to eventually abolish it.

How many blacks know that blacks founded the Texas Republican Party? On July 4, 1867, in Houston, Texas, 150 blacks and 20 whites formed the party. No, not the Black Texas Republican Party, they founded the Texas Republican Party. Blacks across Southern states also founded the Republican parties in their states.

Fugitive slave laws? In 1850, Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. If merely accused of being a slave, even if the person enjoyed freedom all of his or her life (as approximately 11 percent of blacks did just before the Civil War), the person lost the right to representation by an attorney, the right to trial by jury, and the right to habeas corpus.

Emancipation? Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War. In 1865, the 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it.

Civil rights laws? In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed giving the newly emancipated blacks full civil rights and federal guarantee of those rights, superseding any state laws. Every single voting Republican (128 of 134 -- with 6 not voting -- in the House, and 30 of 32 -- with 2 not voting -- in the Senate) voted for the 14th Amendment. Not a single Democrat (zero of 36 in the House, zero of 6 in the Senate) voted for it.

Right to vote? When Southern states balked at implementing the 14th Amendment, Congress came back and passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. Every single Republican voted for it, with every Democrat voting against it.

Ku Klux Klan? In 1872 congressional investigations, Democrats admitted beginning the Klan as an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control in Southern states. As PBS' "American Experience" notes, "In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tenn., in 1865." Blacks, who were all Republican at that time, became the primary targets of violence.

Jim Crow laws? Between 1870 and 1875, the Republican Congress passed many pro-black civil rights laws. But in 1876, Democrats took control of the House, and no further race-based civil rights laws passed until 1957. In 1892, Democrats gained control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and repealed all the Republican-passed civil rights laws. That enabled the Southern Democrats to pass the Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, and so on, in their individual states.

Civil rights in the '60s? Only 64 percent of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (153 for, 91 against in the House; and 46 for, 21 against in the Senate). But 80 percent of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House; and 27 for, 6 against in the Senate) voted for the 1964 Act.

What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables.

History is a wonderful thing, you should try studying it.

So, you are saying that the Republican Party today is the same party with the same platform as 100 years ago? And ditto for the Democrats?

Is that what you are saying?

I'm saying history speaks for itself.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Exactly the same point I wanted to make. Thanks for doing it for me.

I'd just like to add.

What is it with people unwilling to extend the rights they are themselves enjoying to others? I will never understand that.

Marriage is not a right you idiot!!!

Homosexuals can get married and no one has said they couldn't. The only caveat is they have to marry someone of the opposite sex, otherwise it's a civil union and not a marriage.

Loving v. Virginia disagrees with you on that.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival

Wow you just helped strengthen my argument. "fundamental to our very existence and survival", how could homosexuals be fundamental to our very existence and survival?

And you do realize the was a racial issue and not a homosexual one. Don't you?

Now I know your as queer as a three dollar bill and you want so much to have your sick lifestyle validated, but marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=fubl199.104

 

[bodecea]

"Black History Month" has been observed for 29 years, yet many blacks know little to nothing about the parties' respective roles in advancing or hindering the civil rights of blacks. How many blacks know that following the Civil War, 23 blacks -- 13 of them ex-slaves -- were elected to Congress, all as Republicans? The first black Democrat was not elected to Congress until 1935, from the state of Illinois. The first black congressional Democrat from a Southern state was not elected until 1973.

Democrats, in 1854, passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This overturned the Missouri Compromise and allowed for the importation of slaves into the territories. Disgusted with the passage of this Act, free-soilers and anti-slavery members of the Whig and Democratic parties founded the Republican Party -- not just to stop the spread of slavery, but to eventually abolish it.

How many blacks know that blacks founded the Texas Republican Party? On July 4, 1867, in Houston, Texas, 150 blacks and 20 whites formed the party. No, not the Black Texas Republican Party, they founded the Texas Republican Party. Blacks across Southern states also founded the Republican parties in their states.

Fugitive slave laws? In 1850, Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. If merely accused of being a slave, even if the person enjoyed freedom all of his or her life (as approximately 11 percent of blacks did just before the Civil War), the person lost the right to representation by an attorney, the right to trial by jury, and the right to habeas corpus.

Emancipation? Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War. In 1865, the 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it.

Civil rights laws? In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed giving the newly emancipated blacks full civil rights and federal guarantee of those rights, superseding any state laws. Every single voting Republican (128 of 134 -- with 6 not voting -- in the House, and 30 of 32 -- with 2 not voting -- in the Senate) voted for the 14th Amendment. Not a single Democrat (zero of 36 in the House, zero of 6 in the Senate) voted for it.

Right to vote? When Southern states balked at implementing the 14th Amendment, Congress came back and passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. Every single Republican voted for it, with every Democrat voting against it.

Ku Klux Klan? In 1872 congressional investigations, Democrats admitted beginning the Klan as an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control in Southern states. As PBS' "American Experience" notes, "In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tenn., in 1865." Blacks, who were all Republican at that time, became the primary targets of violence.

Jim Crow laws? Between 1870 and 1875, the Republican Congress passed many pro-black civil rights laws. But in 1876, Democrats took control of the House, and no further race-based civil rights laws passed until 1957. In 1892, Democrats gained control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and repealed all the Republican-passed civil rights laws. That enabled the Southern Democrats to pass the Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, and so on, in their individual states.

Civil rights in the '60s? Only 64 percent of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (153 for, 91 against in the House; and 46 for, 21 against in the Senate). But 80 percent of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House; and 27 for, 6 against in the Senate) voted for the 1964 Act.

What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables.

History is a wonderful thing, you should try studying it.

So, you are saying that the Republican Party today is the same party with the same platform as 100 years ago? And ditto for the Democrats?

Is that what you are saying?

I'm saying history speaks for itself.

So, how do you feel about this history?

Teapot Dome scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and this history?

Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and this history?

Watergate scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It speaks for itself too, doesn't it?

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is not a right you idiot!!!

Homosexuals can get married and no one has said they couldn't. The only caveat is they have to marry someone of the opposite sex, otherwise it's a civil union and not a marriage.

Loving v. Virginia disagrees with you on that.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow you just helped strengthen my argument. "fundamental to our very existence and survival", how could homosexuals be fundamental to our very existence and survival?

Kindly read. The quote says M.A.R.R.I.A.G.E.

And you do realize the was a racial issue and not a homosexual one. Don't you?

Kindly show where in that statement it says "Racial Marriage". I just see the word M.A.R.R.I.A.G.E.

Now I know your as queer as a three dollar bill and you want so much to have your sick lifestyle validated, but marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Not always...and not now either. I am legally married. Others just like me are not. Hmmm. Seems to me that some law-abiding tax-paying citizens are being discriminated against for no valid reason.

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=fubl199.104[/QUOTE]

 

[xsited1]

sure it is. If the assumption is that individual liberty is a primary concern of our culture then there is a logical relationship between the civil rights of minorities and the civil rights of gays. Indeed, we see a lot of the same rhetoric regurgitated in the same arguments against both.

You may see it as black and white, but there are plenty of gray areas in this debate. There are many in the religious community, specifically Muslims, that view homosexuality as an abomination. And there are still many who believe that many gays are that way because of physical and/or sexual abuse. Scientists have discovered certain chemical imbalances which might lead to homosexual tendencies. Imagine if a treatment is devised to counter this imbalance. You can't stop science. No, this debate is far from over.

How can you breath where you have your head?

You don't even believe in science. You believe in magical creation.

Hey, do you know any gays? Go ahead, tell me your best friends are gay.

Your posts are always amusing. So I'm a scientist who doesn't believe in science? And I went to a gay church for some time. Who knew I would meet gay people there?

Yet another rdean post! Thanks again for the laughs.

 

[del]

yea because a contract between two consenting adults always leads to incest. he reminds me of these idiots:

If you really want the truth, they were democrats standing on the capital protesting civil rights not republicans.

What do you want to guess their party affiliation is now?

dead

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So, you are saying that the Republican Party today is the same party with the same platform as 100 years ago? And ditto for the Democrats?

Is that what you are saying?

I'm saying history speaks for itself.

So, how do you feel about this history?

Teapot Dome scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and this history?

Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and this history?

Watergate scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It speaks for itself too, doesn't it?

We could be here all day comparing scandals. So what's your point?

The history I shown was how the democrats hasn't in it's history been for people of color, whereas the Republican party was instrumental in every civil rights act that's been passed as well as instituting affirmative action.

 

[midcan5]

These are the threads that make one laugh out loud.

"Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness."

Blaise Pascal

"We all are born mad. Some remain so."

Samuel Beckett

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Loving v. Virginia disagrees with you on that.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow you just helped strengthen my argument. "fundamental to our very existence and survival", how could homosexuals be fundamental to our very existence and survival?

Kindly read. The quote says M.A.R.R.I.A.G.E.

I'm not sure which link you want me to read from but from the link I provided it states;

DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means
only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,
and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is
a husband or a wife.''.


Kindly show where in that statement it says "Racial Marriage". I just see the word M.A.R.R.I.A.G.E.

The link I provided shown the definition of marriage, your link was a case based on inter-racial marriage.

"Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court by a 9-0 vote declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States."

Now I know your as queer as a three dollar bill and you want so much to have your sick lifestyle validated, but marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Not always...and not now either. I am legally married. Others just like me are not. Hmmm. Seems to me that some law-abiding tax-paying citizens are being discriminated against for no valid reason.

Exactly how are homosexuals being descriminated against? You can engage in "civil unions", "domestic partnerships" or whatever you homosexuals choose to call it, but it's not a marriage. Marriage has been legally defined as a union between a man and a woman. I'm pretty sure that SCOTUS' ruling states that it's up to individual states whether or not to recognize same-sex unions as marriages.

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=fubl199.104

[/QUOTE]

Until the legal definition is changed, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Period.

 

[rdean]

You may see it as black and white, but there are plenty of gray areas in this debate. There are many in the religious community, specifically Muslims, that view homosexuality as an abomination. And there are still many who believe that many gays are that way because of physical and/or sexual abuse. Scientists have discovered certain chemical imbalances which might lead to homosexual tendencies. Imagine if a treatment is devised to counter this imbalance. You can't stop science. No, this debate is far from over.

How can you breath where you have your head?

You don't even believe in science. You believe in magical creation.

Hey, do you know any gays? Go ahead, tell me your best friends are gay.

Your posts are always amusing. So I'm a scientist who doesn't believe in science? And I went to a gay church for some time. Who knew I would meet gay people there?

Yet another rdean post! Thanks again for the laughs.

I read this post and tried to figure out what it meant.

Are you saying you're a scientist? Or that you don't believe in "science"? Either way, it's still a joke.

You went to a "gay church"? What is that? Were you kneeling? Are you sure it was a church? Did you "take, eat, this is my body"?

I suspected you were laughing. That Jokeresque, maniacal laugh that goes along with a white coat with plenty of backside buckles.