Black Republican: Don’t Equate Black Rights And Gay Rights

[Seawytch]

Blacks didn't choose to be black.


What aggravates me about the goofy gays in this country is their constant whining. They chose the life they're leading they should just shut the hell up and deal with the consequences of their actions.

The only conclusion I can draw from you post is that you are equally attracted to both men and women, but chose only one. When did you make this choice? Was it in adolescence or puberty? Are you still equally attracted to both sexes?

There have been and are men that I have great admiration and respect for, but sexually, I've always been attracted to the opposite sex.

Now that's funny...because the same thing is true for me. There are men that I love and have admiration and respect for...I am just not attracted to them sexually. I've ALWAYS been attracted to members of the same sex. No conscious choice was ever made and I've felt this way since my first crushes at around 5 or 6.

 

[bodecea]

Males are instinctively drawn to females for the simple need to reproduce.

Except for about 10% of the population....all the time thruout the history of mankind.

Just like humans are instinctively drawn to using their right hand more than their left hand.....except for about 10% of the population...all the time thruout the history of mankind.


And again...this is not comparing the difficulty of the struggle, it is the issue of equal protection under the law. Period.

Group A getting killed, segregated, beat up in their quest for civil rights does not mean that Group B's quest for civil rights is not valid.

10% figure is bullshit, more 2%.

And you know this.....how?

 

[DaGoose]

I never made a choice. When did you? Are you still attracted to members of the same sex, but simply choose not to act on that attraction? That is the only possible "choice" when it comes to matters of sexual orientation.

If you're gay then you made a choice. Me, being heterosexual I've never had the dilemma of choosing one or the other, nature simply took it's course.

And you have a deep and personal certain knowledge of this.......how?

Look at his user name.....

It's Lonestar logic.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Live with the choices you make and quit your whining!

I never made a choice. When did you? Are you still attracted to members of the same sex, but simply choose not to act on that attraction? That is the only possible "choice" when it comes to matters of sexual orientation.

You know...this whole "It's a choice" arguement is not about them making excuses for denying equal protection under the law....because there's nothing in the law about civil rights being about something inherent vs. choice. All we have to do is look to the 1st amendment and see that there is equal protection under the law based on religion which is a choice.

No....it's about fear. Their fear that they have no control over being gay or straight. That they have no control over their loved ones' being gay or straight. It's not something they can put their hands on and say "this I can change". (Just look at all those fail ex-gay ministries to see that) So, they deny, deny, deny.

Marriage is defined as a civil union between one man and one woman. If you do not fit this definition then you cannot be married. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Fact is you can get married yet you chose a lifestyle that prevents you from having that luxery. You make an unnatural choice and you want society to validate your abominable lifestyle by redefining the word marriage.

 

[bodecea]

If you're gay then you made a choice. Me, being heterosexual I've never had the dilemma of choosing one or the other, nature simply took it's course.

And you have a deep and personal certain knowledge of this.......how?

Look at his user name.....

It's Lonestar logic.

Oh, silly me. You are right.

 

[Seawytch]

This type of marriage “necessarily involves (the) degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”

“When people (like this) marry, they cannot possibly have any progeny,” wrote an appeals judge in a Missouri case. “And such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid their marriages.”

Come on, Flayo, what were they talking about here?

 

[mal]

Except for about 10% of the population....all the time thruout the history of mankind.

Just like humans are instinctively drawn to using their right hand more than their left hand.....except for about 10% of the population...all the time thruout the history of mankind.


And again...this is not comparing the difficulty of the struggle, it is the issue of equal protection under the law. Period.

Group A getting killed, segregated, beat up in their quest for civil rights does not mean that Group B's quest for civil rights is not valid.

10% figure is bullshit, more 2%.

And you know this.....how?

The CDC puts the Gay Population at about 4%

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf

That link not Illustrates the Gay Population among Men, but it also Illustrates the Plague they continue to Suffer with HIV to this day.

The 4% number is the same for Woman...

And that doesn't add up to 8% Bodey.



peace...

 

[FA_Q2]

This type of marriage “necessarily involves (the) degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”

“When people (like this) marry, they cannot possibly have any progeny,” wrote an appeals judge in a Missouri case. “And such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid their marriages.”

What were they talking about?

You know what they are talking about and quite frankly it is one of the few arguments against gay marriage that has merit. Essentially, it does the government no good encouraging gay behavior or marriage through the special considerations like tax breaks by recognizing them because there is no sought outcome aka children. That is, after all, the actual purpose of marriage. To build a family. That may not always be the outcome but it is the basis. Now, if I were a democrat, I might almost buy that argument but the fact is that the government does not have a right to encourage one behavior over another. I have the freedom of choice and the government should not get involved with little packages OF MY OWN MONEY that they will abstain from taking from me if I just do something they want. Social engineering is wrong.

Then, of course, there is the fact that stable relationships actually DO benefit society and the government no matter if they are gay or not. People in those relationships are going to be happier, more stable and better prepared to weather disasters not to mention all the advantages that come with marriage during medical and other times of crisis. So, even though it is valid to point out the government loses the advantages of a family unit producing progeny there are many advantages gained through allowing people the freedom to marry whomever they choose and that no matter what the impact of such allowances may be, there needs to be a FAR more compelling reason for the government to take a right or ability away from anyone. For me, I believe that no right or action should EVER be suppressed unless it directly impact the rights or freedoms of others. Under that guise (what I consider to be the true underlying basis of conservatism) the question must be asked: what right do I lose in your ability to be married? The answer is, of course, none.


Well, that went off on a tangent and was likely less clear than your post BUT, as I think you already understood what they were saying, please spring the trap that you baited....

 

[mal]

To Defy one's Natural Design and Equipment IS the Choice...

It's really not that Difficult to Grasp.

Some have bad Wiring, and Feel they don't have a Choice, but it still Remains a Deviation from Nature's Design and our "very Existence".



peace...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I never made a choice. When did you? Are you still attracted to members of the same sex, but simply choose not to act on that attraction? That is the only possible "choice" when it comes to matters of sexual orientation.

If you're gay then you made a choice. Me, being heterosexual I've never had the dilemma of choosing one or the other, nature simply took it's course.

And you have a deep and personal certain knowledge of this.......how?

A deep and personal knowledge? No. But there is no other explanation.

 

[bodecea]

I never made a choice. When did you? Are you still attracted to members of the same sex, but simply choose not to act on that attraction? That is the only possible "choice" when it comes to matters of sexual orientation.

You know...this whole "It's a choice" arguement is not about them making excuses for denying equal protection under the law....because there's nothing in the law about civil rights being about something inherent vs. choice. All we have to do is look to the 1st amendment and see that there is equal protection under the law based on religion which is a choice.

No....it's about fear. Their fear that they have no control over being gay or straight. That they have no control over their loved ones' being gay or straight. It's not something they can put their hands on and say "this I can change". (Just look at all those fail ex-gay ministries to see that) So, they deny, deny, deny.

Marriage is defined as a civil union between one man and one woman. If you do not fit this definition then you cannot be married. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Fact is you can get married yet you chose a lifestyle that prevents you from having that luxery. You make an unnatural choice and you want society to validate your abominable lifestyle by redefining the word marriage.

You are absolutely right. It is a civil union. And BY LAW, the government must provide equal access to the benefits given by such a civil union. It's called equal protection under the LAW and is in our 14th amendment.

As for YOUR lifestyle. I totally disagree with it, know it's a choice on your part, know it is unnatural....but I am not working in anyway to deny you your right to civilly marry.

 

[Seawytch]

I never made a choice. When did you? Are you still attracted to members of the same sex, but simply choose not to act on that attraction? That is the only possible "choice" when it comes to matters of sexual orientation.

You know...this whole "It's a choice" arguement is not about them making excuses for denying equal protection under the law....because there's nothing in the law about civil rights being about something inherent vs. choice. All we have to do is look to the 1st amendment and see that there is equal protection under the law based on religion which is a choice.

No....it's about fear. Their fear that they have no control over being gay or straight. That they have no control over their loved ones' being gay or straight. It's not something they can put their hands on and say "this I can change". (Just look at all those fail ex-gay ministries to see that) So, they deny, deny, deny.

Marriage is defined as a civil union between one man and one woman. If you do not fit this definition then you cannot be married. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Fact is you can get married yet you chose a lifestyle that prevents you from having that luxery. You make an unnatural choice and you want society to validate your abominable lifestyle by redefining the word marriage.

That's weird...my marriage license, issued by the state of California, says something different.

Sorry Lonstar "Logic", you're on the wrong side of history...just like those folks that supported anti-miscegenation laws.

Did you know that Americans were opposed to interracial marriage up until the 1990s? Anti-miscegenation laws were struck down in the 1960s.

Gay marriage on the other hand currently HAS majority support, but is still only legal in a handful of states. Kinda bass ackwards...

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm sure Harvey Milk would disagree with that, too.

Again, just what are they asking for? The right to do the same thing that the rest of us get to do, right? They simply want to live their life without being treated like criminals and denied the rights we all enjoy.

They don't want to be told they can't rent an apartment, shop in certain stores or even get married.

And they sure as hell don't want to be beaten, tortured and murdered either.

No, they're asking for gay marriage, not the same thing blacks were fighting for in the civil rights and they haven't even come close to going through what blacks have went through so its not a comparison, a better comparison would be to women rights struggles but not blacks.

Let's put this in the proper perspective......

They're asking to enjoy the rights and freedoms of being an American citizen without being beaten, tortured and murdered and without having laws passed criminializing bedroom behavior between two consenting adults.

How's that?

Lets actually put it in perspective:

Blacks wanted to be recognized as PEOPLE and not OBJECTS.
Gays want to marry.

No they are not the same and they are not seeking the same equal treatment. Blacks had to fight for FAR more than marriage. They had to fight to even be considered a person. Gay have always been recognized as people (unless they are also black). That is a stark difference in the different fights. They are not the same thing.

 

[Seawytch]

This type of marriage “necessarily involves (the) degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”

“When people (like this) marry, they cannot possibly have any progeny,” wrote an appeals judge in a Missouri case. “And such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid their marriages.”

What were they talking about?

You know what they are talking about and quite frankly it is one of the few arguments against gay marriage that has merit. Essentially, it does the government no good encouraging gay behavior or marriage through the special considerations like tax breaks by recognizing them because there is no sought outcome aka children. That is, after all, the actual purpose of marriage. To build a family. That may not always be the outcome but it is the basis. Now, if I were a democrat, I might almost buy that argument but the fact is that the government does not have a right to encourage one behavior over another. I have the freedom of choice and the government should not get involved with little packages OF MY OWN MONEY that they will abstain from taking from me if I just do something they want. Social engineering is wrong.

Then, of course, there is the fact that stable relationships actually DO benefit society and the government no matter if they are gay or not. People in those relationships are going to be happier, more stable and better prepared to weather disasters not to mention all the advantages that come with marriage during medical and other times of crisis. So, even though it is valid to point out the government loses the advantages of a family unit producing progeny there are many advantages gained through allowing people the freedom to marry whomever they choose and that no matter what the impact of such allowances may be, there needs to be a FAR more compelling reason for the government to take a right or ability away from anyone. For me, I believe that no right or action should EVER be suppressed unless it directly impact the rights or freedoms of others. Under that guise (what I consider to be the true underlying basis of conservatism) the question must be asked: what right do I lose in your ability to be married? The answer is, of course, none.


Well, that went off on a tangent and was likely less clear than your post BUT, as I think you already understood what they were saying, please spring the trap that you baited....

Reproduction isn't required for legal, civil marriage. We don't preclude the elderly or sterile from marrying. Oh, and I just happened to have produced progeny.

All that aside, the statements mentioned in the italicized portion of my post were about interracial marriage, not gay marriage.

Just pointing out the parallels the OP is missing in his "race isn't sexual orientation" rant. (nobody ever said it was)

 

[FA_Q2]

Males are instinctively drawn to females for the simple need to reproduce.

Except for about 10% of the population....all the time thruout the history of mankind.

Just like humans are instinctively drawn to using their right hand more than their left hand.....except for about 10% of the population...all the time thruout the history of mankind.


And again...this is not comparing the difficulty of the struggle, it is the issue of equal protection under the law. Period.

Group A getting killed, segregated, beat up in their quest for civil rights does not mean that Group B's quest for civil rights is not valid.

That 10 percent chose to ignore their natural instinct.

You are perfectly capable of engaging in a legal marriage. But you choose to be a homosexual instead. Stop your complaining and live with the choices you're made.

Because genes never stray from the norm and all people have identical instincts. What is so hard to understand about the fact that gays are simply wired differently and therefore are NATURALLY attracted to the 'wrong' sex. Plain and simple. I can no more be gay (the sex simply will not work if I am not attracted) than a gay can becomes a straight. The hardwiring is different.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I'm a conservative Christian, and I think people need to get over all this bullshit and let gays marry whoever the **** they want. It's none of my business who they commit themselves to, as long as they're committed. The biggest travesty is not gay marriage, it's Hollywood marriages, which usually last as long as a drug-induced stupor.

 

[AmericanFirst]

The issue is whether universal marriage is a human right.

It is not.

 

[AmericanFirst]

He's right. By no measure have gays suffered more than blacks have. It took a civil war, three constitutional amendments, and several landmark pieces of legislation and Supreme Court rulings to undo the legal underpinnings of black inequality. Gays have created A Movement around wanting to marry and act like every gay pride parade might as well be the March on Selma.

So....a little legal discrimination is ok then? A majority really has to suffer for a great deal of time before it counts?


So, I guess we can discriminate against Catholics again. After all, they haven't really suffered legal discrimination all that much.....compared to black people.

If they would leave their perverted sex life in the bedroom and not force it down everyones throats they would have no problems.

 

[bodecea]

The issue is whether universal marriage is a human right.

It is not.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... ...U.S. Supreme Court


Our SCOTUS disagrees with you, and they know more about our Constitutional rights than you do.