U of P joins anti-recruiter fight

[The ClayTaurus]

If I was a minority, I don't think I would like you using "us" as an argument FOR gay and lesbian rights.

But you're not.

 

[GotZoom]

But you're not.

But they are.

----

BOSTON, Ma. -- Last week, the three largest associations of black ministers in the Boston area united, holding news conferences and issuing statements to denounce homosexual marriage, tearing down the main argument presented by pro-gay activists that compares the civil rights movement to the gay rights movement.

The civil rights argument has propelled the homosexual movement in the past months. The Massachusetts high court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage was based on the Supreme Court's 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education ruling, which ended racial segregation in America. At California, the nuisance Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco cited equal rights as the reason to issue gay marriage licenses illegally.

That same argument has been heard from every pro-gay activist who sprawled and rallied at the steps of the city halls in New York and Oregon, and from Mayor Jason West of New Paltz, N.Y. who was charged on 19 criminal counts for performing and handing out marriage licenses. Even several prominent black legislatures compared the blacks long struggle to gain civil rights to the pro-gay ruckus. They stood alongside gay-activists at the Massachusetts constitutional convention in February and in March, using the same argument and same tactics to gain support for legalized homosexuality in the state.

However the unity of the three associations of black ministers invalidated those arguments in one blow.

"I'm offended that they're comparing this to civil rights," said Rev. Jeffrey Brown, a Baptist minister. "Marriage is not a civil right, and the struggle of gay and lesbian people cannot be compared to the struggle of blacks. That 150 years of struggle was a unique event in history."

Rev. Jesse Jackson, while at Harvard University for a recent event celebrating the 50th anniversary of the school board decision, called the comparison of the two movements "a stretch" because "gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution."

Rev. Eugene Rivers of the Boston Ten-Point Coalition, a group of clergy and lay leaders, black politicians who supported that argument were "kowtowing to white liberals."

"The black community needs to draw a line in the sand and defend our history and our struggle from being exploited by those who would use it now for ideological convenience," Rivers said.





http://www.christianpost.com/php_functions/print_friendly.php?tbl_name=church&id=841

 

[Johnney]

classy... comparing black history to that of gays. granted queers have been doing their "thing" for centuries, it hasnt been until recently that they wanted to become legitimate with their...whatever

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Rev. Jesse Jackson, while at Harvard University for a recent event celebrating the 50th anniversary of the school board decision, called the comparison of the two movements "a stretch" because "gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution."

Just curious, but does a Republican lose it's wings everytime one of you guys uses Jesse Jackson to discredit someone else's argument? Does it sting a little?

Seriously though, it's a good and valid point.

 

[musicman]

Just curious, but does a Republican lose it's wings everytime one of you guys uses Jesse Jackson to discredit someone else's argument? Does it sting a little?

Seriously though, it's a good and valid point.

Yeah - except that - even in making a valid point, Jesse Jackson demonstrates that he is - first, foremost, and always - a disingenuous, opportunistic race-baiter. His implication that blacks were considered three-fifths human in the Constitution is wrong, and he knows it (or should, if he's going to open his yap).

Slave states would have been only too glad to claim blacks - who enjoyed no rights, no recourse, and no representation - at a 1:1 ratio with the rest of their populations. More population=more representation=more power. The institution of slavery itself would have been strengthened by such a system. The three-fifths compromise was, then, the opening salvo in the war AGAINST slavery in the new nation.

Never let it be said, though, that Jesse Jackson let the truth get in the way of a good story. What a prick.

 

[USMCDevilDog]

LoL, I'm sorry but Jesse Jackson makes me laugh. He's at every little thing that could be against Bush, his face is ALWAYS there! What a funny little man.

 

[musicman]

LoL, I'm sorry but Jesse Jackson makes me laugh. He's at every little thing that could be against Bush, his face is ALWAYS there! What a funny little man.

Ha ha - no kidding. He's as predictable as flies on shit!

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I think the "don't ask, don't tell" thing was more for homo safety than anything else. It was to protect homos from being beaten up, ostracized, or humiliated by other soldiers.

And yeah, I'd have to agree that taking a shower with a homo would be uncomfortable, lesbians on the other hand...

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Yeah - except that - even in making a valid point, Jesse Jackson demonstrates that he is - first, foremost, and always - a disingenuous, opportunistic race-baiter. His implication that blacks were considered three-fifths human in the Constitution is wrong

This is true though, slaves were considered to to be equal to only 3/5 of a white person. What's "wrong" about that? It's historical fact. You even acknowledged the 3/5 compromise in your post.

 

[musicman]

This is true though, slaves were considered to to be equal to only 3/5 of a white person.

For the purposes of representation only, though - and rightly so. Again - counting slaves at a 1:1 ratio with the rest of the population, when they had no freedoms or rights, would have merely served to perpetuate their bondage, by strenghtening slave states, and - by extension - the institution of slavery itself. The three-fifths rule was devised by opponents of slavery, and was, in fact, the opening shot in what they knew would eventually be a war to eradicate the practice.

What's "wrong" about that?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you have merely failed to understand the motivations behind the three-fifths compromise. That's certainly understandable, in light of all the hateful, agenda-driven misinformation being propogated by race hucksters like Jesse Jackson. I will not, however, be as charitable with them.

To suggest - no, check that - to DECLARE - that the three-fifths compromise was in any way a reflection of the founders' idea of the inherent human worth of slaves is pure and simple slander. It is made all the more outrageous in that it is directed at the very heroic souls who determined to banish slavery from their new nation altogether. I don't know how these "black leaders" can sleep at night.