Same bullshit, different decade: What members of the gay rights movement could learn from history

[NYcarbineer]

I often see them comparing the gay struggle for equality to that of the African American struggle for racial equality, "same bullshit, different decade" they contend. Well, true, but not in the way they think. The comparison is flawed, for two reasons.

Yeah, I know what's coming too, the standard volley of how "gays should be allowed to marry" or "why do you hate gays?" or the run of the mill cherrypicked Bible verse or two. I've seen it all pretty much. The whole playbook. So for those of you intent on repeating that tired rhetoric, can it.

The short version:

Reason 1: Martin Luther King sought understanding through tolerance and understanding during the Civil Rights movement. In fact, he didn't speak in terms of tolerance, but of love, a Christian based love. He employed a doctrine passivity, not subversion. Even in the face of having the lives his and his fellow African Americans torn apart by racist sentiments and policies, they chose not to do the same to their oppressors. This attitude allowed for no further division of an already helplessly, racially divided America.

Reason 2: Homosexual and Liberal gay rights activists want to force you to be understanding and tolerant of their cause for equality, without ever being understanding or tolerant themselves. Amounting to nothing more than a vengeful, subversive doctrine of unyielding, unwavering tolerance at whatever cost; to be especially employed towards Christian private business owners. This allows for further division between them and those the LGBT rights movement is trying to reach.

The rest of it:

For King, nothing would ever advance the cause of equality by repaying intolerance with intolerance, hatred with hatred, or violence with violence. "Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that," he said. That however is in stark contrast to how the gay rights movement has decided to react to the assumed hatred and bigotry on the behalf of religious private business owners.

The Kingsian philosophy of tolerance, passivity and nonviolence consisted of six main principles:

1) First he said, one can resist evil without resorting to violence.

2) Second, nonviolence seeks to win the ‘‘friendship and understanding’’ of the opponent, not to humiliate him (King, Stride, p.84).

3) Furthermore, third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed.

4) Fourth, he continued, is that those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive.

5) Fifthly, nonviolent resistance avoids ‘‘external physical violence’’ and ‘‘internal violence of spirit’’ as well: ‘‘The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him" (King, Stride, p.85). The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape, which means ‘‘understanding,’’ or ‘‘redeeming good will for all men’’ (King, Stride, p.86).

6) Lastly, he states the sixth principle, which was that the nonviolent resister should have a ‘‘deep faith in the future,’’ stemming from the conviction that ‘‘the universe is on the side of justice’’ (King, Stride, p.88).

King held the philosophy akin to the old folk hymn, "keep your eyes on the prize." To be frank, that prize wasn't putting some unwitting business owner out on the street for being racist or intolerant. Yeah, business owners were racist and intolerant back then, but not even they (the blacks, and most of them I'd think) thought it was okay to ruin someone, besides, what were they going to do? Sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry who discriminated against them? Not really. Such a movement spurred Congress to end the discussion on racial inequality once and for all, you know the rest.

If only gay rights activists and liberal pro gay rights activists took the approach specifically covered in the third, fourth and fifth principle, I would guarantee that there would be a more broad understanding and sympathy towards gay rights and equality, moreso than exists at this point in time.

When did MLK preach that we should tolerate racism?

 

[NYcarbineer]

King held the philosophy akin to the old folk hymn, "keep your eyes on the prize." To be frank, that prize wasn't putting some unwitting business owner out on the street for being racist or intolerant. .

I guess you've never heard of the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955-56.

 

[Seawytch]

"Same bullshit, different decade: What members of the gay rights movement could learn from history"

Only you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans have failed to learn from history.

And the lesson you've failed to learn is that Americans disadvantaged by force of law, subject to discrimination solely because of who they are, will fight to realize their comprehensive civil rights and ultimately prevail, regardless the efforts of conservatives to deny citizens their civil rights.

Sorry but please cite any law that disadvantages gays. There are none.

It is legal in a majority of states to refuse employment to a person because he or she is gay.

That is correct (despite a solid majority of Americans supporting a federal law that would ban discrimination based on someone’s sexual orientation). There are 32 of them.

There are like 13 states where you could come back from your Honeymoon to find out you've been fired because you legally married.

There are even more states where, again despite public opinion being on the side of the gay customers, not the anti gay business owner, you don't have to bake the damn cake.

 

[Seawytch]

What we learned from history is that without exception, the conserveatives are on the wrong side of it and 40 years from now, you'll claim you were at the forefront of sponsoring gay marriage.

You mean like the dems claim they were at the forefront of civil rights, women's rights, ending slavery, etc? You're a dumb ass

Tsk, tsk...they weren't always Democrats, but they were always liberals.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The LGBT community prefer Alinsky's rules over King's

King actually rose to prominence in the Montgomery bus boycott, which was the effort by the blacks of Montgomery to financially destroy the Montgomery transit system if they would not end discrimination.

 

[rightwinger]

I often see them comparing the gay struggle for equality to that of the African American struggle for racial equality, "same bullshit, different decade" they contend. Well, true, but not in the way they think. The comparison is flawed, for two reasons.

Yeah, I know what's coming too, the standard volley of how "gays should be allowed to marry" or "why do you hate gays?" or the run of the mill cherrypicked Bible verse or two. I've seen it all pretty much. The whole playbook. So for those of you intent on repeating that tired rhetoric, can it.

The short version:

Reason 1: Martin Luther King sought understanding through tolerance and understanding during the Civil Rights movement. In fact, he didn't speak in terms of tolerance, but of love, a Christian based love. He employed a doctrine passivity, not subversion. Even in the face of having the lives his and his fellow African Americans torn apart by racist sentiments and policies, they chose not to do the same to their oppressors. This attitude allowed for no further division of an already helplessly, racially divided America.

Reason 2: Homosexual and Liberal gay rights activists want to force you to be understanding and tolerant of their cause for equality, without ever being understanding or tolerant themselves. Amounting to nothing more than a vengeful, subversive doctrine of unyielding, unwavering tolerance at whatever cost; to be especially employed towards Christian private business owners. This allows for further division between them and those the LGBT rights movement is trying to reach.

The rest of it:

For King, nothing would ever advance the cause of equality by repaying intolerance with intolerance, hatred with hatred, or violence with violence. "Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that," he said. That however is in stark contrast to how the gay rights movement has decided to react to the assumed hatred and bigotry on the behalf of religious private business owners.

The Kingsian philosophy of tolerance, passivity and nonviolence consisted of six main principles:

1) First he said, one can resist evil without resorting to violence.

2) Second, nonviolence seeks to win the ‘‘friendship and understanding’’ of the opponent, not to humiliate him (King, Stride, p.84).

3) Furthermore, third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed.

4) Fourth, he continued, is that those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive.

5) Fifthly, nonviolent resistance avoids ‘‘external physical violence’’ and ‘‘internal violence of spirit’’ as well: ‘‘The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him" (King, Stride, p.85). The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape, which means ‘‘understanding,’’ or ‘‘redeeming good will for all men’’ (King, Stride, p.86).

6) Lastly, he states the sixth principle, which was that the nonviolent resister should have a ‘‘deep faith in the future,’’ stemming from the conviction that ‘‘the universe is on the side of justice’’ (King, Stride, p.88).

King held the philosophy akin to the old folk hymn, "keep your eyes on the prize." To be frank, that prize wasn't putting some unwitting business owner out on the street for being racist or intolerant. Yeah, business owners were racist and intolerant back then, but not even they (the blacks, and most of them I'd think) thought it was okay to ruin someone, besides, what were they going to do? Sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry who discriminated against them? Not really. Such a movement spurred Congress to end the discussion on racial inequality once and for all, you know the rest.

If only gay rights activists and liberal pro gay rights activists took the approach specifically covered in the third, fourth and fifth principle, I would guarantee that there would be a more broad understanding and sympathy towards gay rights and equality, moreso than exists at this point in time.

Sad that you have such a poor understanding of history

We heard the same arguments fifty years ago as we hear today......States rights, you are forcing me to accept people against my will, I have a right to serve who I please, the bible supports me

Gays have been discriminated against for centuries, they have been cast to the shadows and given second class status

It is a civil rights issue

 

[Bfgrn]

I often see them comparing the gay struggle for equality to that of the African American struggle for racial equality, "same bullshit, different decade" they contend. Well, true, but not in the way they think. The comparison is flawed, for two reasons.

Yeah, I know what's coming too, the standard volley of how "gays should be allowed to marry" or "why do you hate gays?" or the run of the mill cherrypicked Bible verse or two. I've seen it all pretty much. The whole playbook. So for those of you intent on repeating that tired rhetoric, can it.

The short version:

Reason 1: Martin Luther King sought understanding through tolerance and understanding during the Civil Rights movement. In fact, he didn't speak in terms of tolerance, but of love, a Christian based love. He employed a doctrine passivity, not subversion. Even in the face of having the lives his and his fellow African Americans torn apart by racist sentiments and policies, they chose not to do the same to their oppressors. This attitude allowed for no further division of an already helplessly, racially divided America.

Reason 2: Homosexual and Liberal gay rights activists want to force you to be understanding and tolerant of their cause for equality, without ever being understanding or tolerant themselves. Amounting to nothing more than a vengeful, subversive doctrine of unyielding, unwavering tolerance at whatever cost; to be especially employed towards Christian private business owners. This allows for further division between them and those the LGBT rights movement is trying to reach.

The rest of it:

For King, nothing would ever advance the cause of equality by repaying intolerance with intolerance, hatred with hatred, or violence with violence. "Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that," he said. That however is in stark contrast to how the gay rights movement has decided to react to the assumed hatred and bigotry on the behalf of religious private business owners.

The Kingsian philosophy of tolerance, passivity and nonviolence consisted of six main principles:

1) First he said, one can resist evil without resorting to violence.

2) Second, nonviolence seeks to win the ‘‘friendship and understanding’’ of the opponent, not to humiliate him (King, Stride, p.84).

3) Furthermore, third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed.

4) Fourth, he continued, is that those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive.

5) Fifthly, nonviolent resistance avoids ‘‘external physical violence’’ and ‘‘internal violence of spirit’’ as well: ‘‘The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him" (King, Stride, p.85). The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape, which means ‘‘understanding,’’ or ‘‘redeeming good will for all men’’ (King, Stride, p.86).

6) Lastly, he states the sixth principle, which was that the nonviolent resister should have a ‘‘deep faith in the future,’’ stemming from the conviction that ‘‘the universe is on the side of justice’’ (King, Stride, p.88).

King held the philosophy akin to the old folk hymn, "keep your eyes on the prize." To be frank, that prize wasn't putting some unwitting business owner out on the street for being racist or intolerant. Yeah, business owners were racist and intolerant back then, but not even they (the blacks, and most of them I'd think) thought it was okay to ruin someone, besides, what were they going to do? Sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry who discriminated against them? Not really. Such a movement spurred Congress to end the discussion on racial inequality once and for all, you know the rest.

If only gay rights activists and liberal pro gay rights activists took the approach specifically covered in the third, fourth and fifth principle, I would guarantee that there would be a more broad understanding and sympathy towards gay rights and equality, moreso than exists at this point in time.

Violence
1
a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse


Non-violence does NOT mean silence.

There is no violence from the LGBT movement. But there is a long history of violence AGAINST the LGBT community.

You are a real asshole, and obsessed with this issue.

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were, for the moment, unpopular.”
Edward R. Murrow

 

[Seawytch]

I often see them comparing the gay struggle for equality to that of the African American struggle for racial equality, "same bullshit, different decade" they contend.

You've got it all wrong, TK. It's not the struggle that is compared. Nobody is comparing race to sexual orientation (despite both being imutable traits). What is compared (and 100% comparable) is the bigotry and discrimination. There is no difference between racist bigots of yore and anti gay bigots of today...except their target. (right down to the language used)



Anti-miscegenation argument:

Connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion. (Virginia Supreme Court ruling, 1878)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

There are some truths that are in fact eternal and based on nature and nature's law. And that's what the church teaches and that's what the Bible teaches and that's what reason dictates. (Rick Santorum on CNN, 2011)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

White race-purity is the cornerstone of our civilization. Its mongrelization with non-white blood, particularly with Negro blood, would spell the downfall of our civilization. (Lothrop Stoddard, lawyer and eugenicist, 1924)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

The family is the bedrock of our society. Unless we protect it with the institution of marriage, our country will fall. (Rick Santorum in Iowa, 2011)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

By marrying outside of your race, no matter what that race is, and then having children of mixed race, you destroy God's original design for your race. The offspring of interracial unions are no longer God's intended creation. (SaveYourHeritage.com)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

There is no such thing as a homosexual version of human nature. ... Homosexual behavior is biologically destructive to human health, and biologically destructive behavior is biologically unnatural by functional definition. -- North Carolina Family Policy Council, Why Not Same-Sex 'Marriage,' 2011)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

People who engage in the sin of interracial marriage need to reflect upon the offspring they will parent. What race will these children identify with? We know of a child who asked her maternal grandmother when she would turn white like her. ... The above-mentioned child put powder all over herself one day, in an attempt to look like her mother. This, of course, did not work. It will never work, and this child will suffer for her mother's sin forever. (SaveYourHeritage.com)

Same-sex marriage argument:

Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids. ... Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity -- either mothers or fathers -- are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let's not confuse them further. (National Organization for Marriage,Marriage Talking Points)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Intermarriage between whites and blacks ... is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania. (U.S. Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry, D-Ga., 1912)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

It is unreasonable ... to believe there is no public interest in how marriage is structured except to affirm whatever attractions people have. If so, pedophiles would be married to children, necrophiles to dead bodies, pornophiles to pictures and exhibitionists to strangers. (Family Policy Council, Why Not Same-Sex 'Marriage,' 2011)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. (Leon Bazile, Virginia trial court judge, 1965)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

It's pretty simple: marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a historic doctrine driven deep into the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, and it's a perfect example of what I mean by the rise of paganism. (Newt Gingrich on a conference call, 2012)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Isaac was forbidden to marry into the Canaanites and a wife was selected for him from his kindred, Rebekah. Jacob was warned to take a wife from his own kindred. The Israelite tribes descended from Jacob were expressly told not to marry outside of their race, their own kind of people. (SaveYourHeritage.com)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

The Bible is so clear in its support of heterosexual marriage there is little need for us to go through an exhaustive definition of biblical marriage versus the types of unions allowed by law today. All the scriptures in the Bible concerning marriage presuppose heterosexual marriage. (Bishop Henry R. Jackson Jr., for CNN)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Today, the heritage that these noble men passed to their posterity is under attack. White heritage is considered 'racist,' 'bigoted,' 'hateful,' among other negative connotations. ... Add the word 'Christian' with the word 'white' and the hatred for our culture and heritage gets almost maniacal. Christianity is mocked, laughed at and disregarded as something for weirdoes or extremists. (SaveYourHeritage.com)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

We've been hammered by the left for my standing up for the traditional family, and I will continue to do so. The left, unfortunately, participates in bullying more than the right does. They say that they're tolerant, and they're anything but tolerant of people who disagree with them and support traditional values. (Rick Santorum on WGIR radio, 2011)

 

[Redfish]

I often see them comparing the gay struggle for equality to that of the African American struggle for racial equality, "same bullshit, different decade" they contend. Well, true, but not in the way they think. The comparison is flawed, for two reasons.

Yeah, I know what's coming too, the standard volley of how "gays should be allowed to marry" or "why do you hate gays?" or the run of the mill cherrypicked Bible verse or two. I've seen it all pretty much. The whole playbook. So for those of you intent on repeating that tired rhetoric, can it.

The short version:

Reason 1: Martin Luther King sought understanding through tolerance and understanding during the Civil Rights movement. In fact, he didn't speak in terms of tolerance, but of love, a Christian based love. He employed a doctrine passivity, not subversion. Even in the face of having the lives his and his fellow African Americans torn apart by racist sentiments and policies, they chose not to do the same to their oppressors. This attitude allowed for no further division of an already helplessly, racially divided America.

Reason 2: Homosexual and Liberal gay rights activists want to force you to be understanding and tolerant of their cause for equality, without ever being understanding or tolerant themselves. Amounting to nothing more than a vengeful, subversive doctrine of unyielding, unwavering tolerance at whatever cost; to be especially employed towards Christian private business owners. This allows for further division between them and those the LGBT rights movement is trying to reach.

The rest of it:

For King, nothing would ever advance the cause of equality by repaying intolerance with intolerance, hatred with hatred, or violence with violence. "Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that," he said. That however is in stark contrast to how the gay rights movement has decided to react to the assumed hatred and bigotry on the behalf of religious private business owners.

The Kingsian philosophy of tolerance, passivity and nonviolence consisted of six main principles:

1) First he said, one can resist evil without resorting to violence.

2) Second, nonviolence seeks to win the ‘‘friendship and understanding’’ of the opponent, not to humiliate him (King, Stride, p.84).

3) Furthermore, third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed.

4) Fourth, he continued, is that those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive.

5) Fifthly, nonviolent resistance avoids ‘‘external physical violence’’ and ‘‘internal violence of spirit’’ as well: ‘‘The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him" (King, Stride, p.85). The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape, which means ‘‘understanding,’’ or ‘‘redeeming good will for all men’’ (King, Stride, p.86).

6) Lastly, he states the sixth principle, which was that the nonviolent resister should have a ‘‘deep faith in the future,’’ stemming from the conviction that ‘‘the universe is on the side of justice’’ (King, Stride, p.88).

King held the philosophy akin to the old folk hymn, "keep your eyes on the prize." To be frank, that prize wasn't putting some unwitting business owner out on the street for being racist or intolerant. Yeah, business owners were racist and intolerant back then, but not even they (the blacks, and most of them I'd think) thought it was okay to ruin someone, besides, what were they going to do? Sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry who discriminated against them? Not really. Such a movement spurred Congress to end the discussion on racial inequality once and for all, you know the rest.

If only gay rights activists and liberal pro gay rights activists took the approach specifically covered in the third, fourth and fifth principle, I would guarantee that there would be a more broad understanding and sympathy towards gay rights and equality, moreso than exists at this point in time.

When did MLK preach that we should tolerate racism?

Is gay now a race???? WTF?

 

[Redfish]

I often see them comparing the gay struggle for equality to that of the African American struggle for racial equality, "same bullshit, different decade" they contend. Well, true, but not in the way they think. The comparison is flawed, for two reasons.

Yeah, I know what's coming too, the standard volley of how "gays should be allowed to marry" or "why do you hate gays?" or the run of the mill cherrypicked Bible verse or two. I've seen it all pretty much. The whole playbook. So for those of you intent on repeating that tired rhetoric, can it.

The short version:

Reason 1: Martin Luther King sought understanding through tolerance and understanding during the Civil Rights movement. In fact, he didn't speak in terms of tolerance, but of love, a Christian based love. He employed a doctrine passivity, not subversion. Even in the face of having the lives his and his fellow African Americans torn apart by racist sentiments and policies, they chose not to do the same to their oppressors. This attitude allowed for no further division of an already helplessly, racially divided America.

Reason 2: Homosexual and Liberal gay rights activists want to force you to be understanding and tolerant of their cause for equality, without ever being understanding or tolerant themselves. Amounting to nothing more than a vengeful, subversive doctrine of unyielding, unwavering tolerance at whatever cost; to be especially employed towards Christian private business owners. This allows for further division between them and those the LGBT rights movement is trying to reach.

The rest of it:

For King, nothing would ever advance the cause of equality by repaying intolerance with intolerance, hatred with hatred, or violence with violence. "Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that," he said. That however is in stark contrast to how the gay rights movement has decided to react to the assumed hatred and bigotry on the behalf of religious private business owners.

The Kingsian philosophy of tolerance, passivity and nonviolence consisted of six main principles:

1) First he said, one can resist evil without resorting to violence.

2) Second, nonviolence seeks to win the ‘‘friendship and understanding’’ of the opponent, not to humiliate him (King, Stride, p.84).

3) Furthermore, third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed.

4) Fourth, he continued, is that those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive.

5) Fifthly, nonviolent resistance avoids ‘‘external physical violence’’ and ‘‘internal violence of spirit’’ as well: ‘‘The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him" (King, Stride, p.85). The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape, which means ‘‘understanding,’’ or ‘‘redeeming good will for all men’’ (King, Stride, p.86).

6) Lastly, he states the sixth principle, which was that the nonviolent resister should have a ‘‘deep faith in the future,’’ stemming from the conviction that ‘‘the universe is on the side of justice’’ (King, Stride, p.88).

King held the philosophy akin to the old folk hymn, "keep your eyes on the prize." To be frank, that prize wasn't putting some unwitting business owner out on the street for being racist or intolerant. Yeah, business owners were racist and intolerant back then, but not even they (the blacks, and most of them I'd think) thought it was okay to ruin someone, besides, what were they going to do? Sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry who discriminated against them? Not really. Such a movement spurred Congress to end the discussion on racial inequality once and for all, you know the rest.

If only gay rights activists and liberal pro gay rights activists took the approach specifically covered in the third, fourth and fifth principle, I would guarantee that there would be a more broad understanding and sympathy towards gay rights and equality, moreso than exists at this point in time.

Sad that you have such a poor understanding of history

We heard the same arguments fifty years ago as we hear today......States rights, you are forcing me to accept people against my will, I have a right to serve who I please, the bible supports me

Gays have been discriminated against for centuries, they have been cast to the shadows and given second class status

It is a civil rights issue

tolerance and acceptance of gays as equal citizens is a civil rights issue. Calling a gay union a marriage is a cultural or societal issue, it has nothing to do with rights or equality.

Society as a whole should decide what words are used to describe a legal gay union, not the minority gay community.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I often see them comparing the gay struggle for equality to that of the African American struggle for racial equality, "same bullshit, different decade" they contend. Well, true, but not in the way they think. The comparison is flawed, for two reasons.

Yeah, I know what's coming too, the standard volley of how "gays should be allowed to marry" or "why do you hate gays?" or the run of the mill cherrypicked Bible verse or two. I've seen it all pretty much. The whole playbook. So for those of you intent on repeating that tired rhetoric, can it.

The short version:

Reason 1: Martin Luther King sought understanding through tolerance and understanding during the Civil Rights movement. In fact, he didn't speak in terms of tolerance, but of love, a Christian based love. He employed a doctrine passivity, not subversion. Even in the face of having the lives his and his fellow African Americans torn apart by racist sentiments and policies, they chose not to do the same to their oppressors. This attitude allowed for no further division of an already helplessly, racially divided America.

Reason 2: Homosexual and Liberal gay rights activists want to force you to be understanding and tolerant of their cause for equality, without ever being understanding or tolerant themselves. Amounting to nothing more than a vengeful, subversive doctrine of unyielding, unwavering tolerance at whatever cost; to be especially employed towards Christian private business owners. This allows for further division between them and those the LGBT rights movement is trying to reach.

The rest of it:

For King, nothing would ever advance the cause of equality by repaying intolerance with intolerance, hatred with hatred, or violence with violence. "Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that," he said. That however is in stark contrast to how the gay rights movement has decided to react to the assumed hatred and bigotry on the behalf of religious private business owners.

The Kingsian philosophy of tolerance, passivity and nonviolence consisted of six main principles:

1) First he said, one can resist evil without resorting to violence.

2) Second, nonviolence seeks to win the ‘‘friendship and understanding’’ of the opponent, not to humiliate him (King, Stride, p.84).

3) Furthermore, third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed.

4) Fourth, he continued, is that those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive.

5) Fifthly, nonviolent resistance avoids ‘‘external physical violence’’ and ‘‘internal violence of spirit’’ as well: ‘‘The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him" (King, Stride, p.85). The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape, which means ‘‘understanding,’’ or ‘‘redeeming good will for all men’’ (King, Stride, p.86).

6) Lastly, he states the sixth principle, which was that the nonviolent resister should have a ‘‘deep faith in the future,’’ stemming from the conviction that ‘‘the universe is on the side of justice’’ (King, Stride, p.88).

King held the philosophy akin to the old folk hymn, "keep your eyes on the prize." To be frank, that prize wasn't putting some unwitting business owner out on the street for being racist or intolerant. Yeah, business owners were racist and intolerant back then, but not even they (the blacks, and most of them I'd think) thought it was okay to ruin someone, besides, what were they going to do? Sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry who discriminated against them? Not really. Such a movement spurred Congress to end the discussion on racial inequality once and for all, you know the rest.

If only gay rights activists and liberal pro gay rights activists took the approach specifically covered in the third, fourth and fifth principle, I would guarantee that there would be a more broad understanding and sympathy towards gay rights and equality, moreso than exists at this point in time.

When did MLK preach that we should tolerate racism?

Is gay now a race???? WTF?

They try to compare their plight as similar...just more BS

 

[Redfish]

I often see them comparing the gay struggle for equality to that of the African American struggle for racial equality, "same bullshit, different decade" they contend. Well, true, but not in the way they think. The comparison is flawed, for two reasons.

Yeah, I know what's coming too, the standard volley of how "gays should be allowed to marry" or "why do you hate gays?" or the run of the mill cherrypicked Bible verse or two. I've seen it all pretty much. The whole playbook. So for those of you intent on repeating that tired rhetoric, can it.

The short version:

Reason 1: Martin Luther King sought understanding through tolerance and understanding during the Civil Rights movement. In fact, he didn't speak in terms of tolerance, but of love, a Christian based love. He employed a doctrine passivity, not subversion. Even in the face of having the lives his and his fellow African Americans torn apart by racist sentiments and policies, they chose not to do the same to their oppressors. This attitude allowed for no further division of an already helplessly, racially divided America.

Reason 2: Homosexual and Liberal gay rights activists want to force you to be understanding and tolerant of their cause for equality, without ever being understanding or tolerant themselves. Amounting to nothing more than a vengeful, subversive doctrine of unyielding, unwavering tolerance at whatever cost; to be especially employed towards Christian private business owners. This allows for further division between them and those the LGBT rights movement is trying to reach.

The rest of it:

For King, nothing would ever advance the cause of equality by repaying intolerance with intolerance, hatred with hatred, or violence with violence. "Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that," he said. That however is in stark contrast to how the gay rights movement has decided to react to the assumed hatred and bigotry on the behalf of religious private business owners.

The Kingsian philosophy of tolerance, passivity and nonviolence consisted of six main principles:

1) First he said, one can resist evil without resorting to violence.

2) Second, nonviolence seeks to win the ‘‘friendship and understanding’’ of the opponent, not to humiliate him (King, Stride, p.84).

3) Furthermore, third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed.

4) Fourth, he continued, is that those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive.

5) Fifthly, nonviolent resistance avoids ‘‘external physical violence’’ and ‘‘internal violence of spirit’’ as well: ‘‘The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him" (King, Stride, p.85). The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape, which means ‘‘understanding,’’ or ‘‘redeeming good will for all men’’ (King, Stride, p.86).

6) Lastly, he states the sixth principle, which was that the nonviolent resister should have a ‘‘deep faith in the future,’’ stemming from the conviction that ‘‘the universe is on the side of justice’’ (King, Stride, p.88).

King held the philosophy akin to the old folk hymn, "keep your eyes on the prize." To be frank, that prize wasn't putting some unwitting business owner out on the street for being racist or intolerant. Yeah, business owners were racist and intolerant back then, but not even they (the blacks, and most of them I'd think) thought it was okay to ruin someone, besides, what were they going to do? Sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry who discriminated against them? Not really. Such a movement spurred Congress to end the discussion on racial inequality once and for all, you know the rest.

If only gay rights activists and liberal pro gay rights activists took the approach specifically covered in the third, fourth and fifth principle, I would guarantee that there would be a more broad understanding and sympathy towards gay rights and equality, moreso than exists at this point in time.

When did MLK preach that we should tolerate racism?

Is gay now a race???? WTF?

They try to compare their plight as similar...just more BS

most of their "plight" is imagined, or created by their arrogance

 

[NYcarbineer]

I often see them comparing the gay struggle for equality to that of the African American struggle for racial equality, "same bullshit, different decade" they contend. Well, true, but not in the way they think. The comparison is flawed, for two reasons.

Yeah, I know what's coming too, the standard volley of how "gays should be allowed to marry" or "why do you hate gays?" or the run of the mill cherrypicked Bible verse or two. I've seen it all pretty much. The whole playbook. So for those of you intent on repeating that tired rhetoric, can it.

The short version:

Reason 1: Martin Luther King sought understanding through tolerance and understanding during the Civil Rights movement. In fact, he didn't speak in terms of tolerance, but of love, a Christian based love. He employed a doctrine passivity, not subversion. Even in the face of having the lives his and his fellow African Americans torn apart by racist sentiments and policies, they chose not to do the same to their oppressors. This attitude allowed for no further division of an already helplessly, racially divided America.

Reason 2: Homosexual and Liberal gay rights activists want to force you to be understanding and tolerant of their cause for equality, without ever being understanding or tolerant themselves. Amounting to nothing more than a vengeful, subversive doctrine of unyielding, unwavering tolerance at whatever cost; to be especially employed towards Christian private business owners. This allows for further division between them and those the LGBT rights movement is trying to reach.

The rest of it:

For King, nothing would ever advance the cause of equality by repaying intolerance with intolerance, hatred with hatred, or violence with violence. "Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that," he said. That however is in stark contrast to how the gay rights movement has decided to react to the assumed hatred and bigotry on the behalf of religious private business owners.

The Kingsian philosophy of tolerance, passivity and nonviolence consisted of six main principles:

1) First he said, one can resist evil without resorting to violence.

2) Second, nonviolence seeks to win the ‘‘friendship and understanding’’ of the opponent, not to humiliate him (King, Stride, p.84).

3) Furthermore, third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed.

4) Fourth, he continued, is that those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive.

5) Fifthly, nonviolent resistance avoids ‘‘external physical violence’’ and ‘‘internal violence of spirit’’ as well: ‘‘The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him" (King, Stride, p.85). The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape, which means ‘‘understanding,’’ or ‘‘redeeming good will for all men’’ (King, Stride, p.86).

6) Lastly, he states the sixth principle, which was that the nonviolent resister should have a ‘‘deep faith in the future,’’ stemming from the conviction that ‘‘the universe is on the side of justice’’ (King, Stride, p.88).

King held the philosophy akin to the old folk hymn, "keep your eyes on the prize." To be frank, that prize wasn't putting some unwitting business owner out on the street for being racist or intolerant. Yeah, business owners were racist and intolerant back then, but not even they (the blacks, and most of them I'd think) thought it was okay to ruin someone, besides, what were they going to do? Sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry who discriminated against them? Not really. Such a movement spurred Congress to end the discussion on racial inequality once and for all, you know the rest.

If only gay rights activists and liberal pro gay rights activists took the approach specifically covered in the third, fourth and fifth principle, I would guarantee that there would be a more broad understanding and sympathy towards gay rights and equality, moreso than exists at this point in time.

Sad that you have such a poor understanding of history

We heard the same arguments fifty years ago as we hear today......States rights, you are forcing me to accept people against my will, I have a right to serve who I please, the bible supports me

Gays have been discriminated against for centuries, they have been cast to the shadows and given second class status

It is a civil rights issue

tolerance and acceptance of gays as equal citizens is a civil rights issue. Calling a gay union a marriage is a cultural or societal issue, it has nothing to do with rights or equality.

Society as a whole should decide what words are used to describe a legal gay union, not the minority gay community.

We have representative government in this country.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I often see them comparing the gay struggle for equality to that of the African American struggle for racial equality, "same bullshit, different decade" they contend. Well, true, but not in the way they think. The comparison is flawed, for two reasons.

Yeah, I know what's coming too, the standard volley of how "gays should be allowed to marry" or "why do you hate gays?" or the run of the mill cherrypicked Bible verse or two. I've seen it all pretty much. The whole playbook. So for those of you intent on repeating that tired rhetoric, can it.

The short version:

Reason 1: Martin Luther King sought understanding through tolerance and understanding during the Civil Rights movement. In fact, he didn't speak in terms of tolerance, but of love, a Christian based love. He employed a doctrine passivity, not subversion. Even in the face of having the lives his and his fellow African Americans torn apart by racist sentiments and policies, they chose not to do the same to their oppressors. This attitude allowed for no further division of an already helplessly, racially divided America.

Reason 2: Homosexual and Liberal gay rights activists want to force you to be understanding and tolerant of their cause for equality, without ever being understanding or tolerant themselves. Amounting to nothing more than a vengeful, subversive doctrine of unyielding, unwavering tolerance at whatever cost; to be especially employed towards Christian private business owners. This allows for further division between them and those the LGBT rights movement is trying to reach.

The rest of it:

For King, nothing would ever advance the cause of equality by repaying intolerance with intolerance, hatred with hatred, or violence with violence. "Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that," he said. That however is in stark contrast to how the gay rights movement has decided to react to the assumed hatred and bigotry on the behalf of religious private business owners.

The Kingsian philosophy of tolerance, passivity and nonviolence consisted of six main principles:

1) First he said, one can resist evil without resorting to violence.

2) Second, nonviolence seeks to win the ‘‘friendship and understanding’’ of the opponent, not to humiliate him (King, Stride, p.84).

3) Furthermore, third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed.

4) Fourth, he continued, is that those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive.

5) Fifthly, nonviolent resistance avoids ‘‘external physical violence’’ and ‘‘internal violence of spirit’’ as well: ‘‘The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him" (King, Stride, p.85). The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape, which means ‘‘understanding,’’ or ‘‘redeeming good will for all men’’ (King, Stride, p.86).

6) Lastly, he states the sixth principle, which was that the nonviolent resister should have a ‘‘deep faith in the future,’’ stemming from the conviction that ‘‘the universe is on the side of justice’’ (King, Stride, p.88).

King held the philosophy akin to the old folk hymn, "keep your eyes on the prize." To be frank, that prize wasn't putting some unwitting business owner out on the street for being racist or intolerant. Yeah, business owners were racist and intolerant back then, but not even they (the blacks, and most of them I'd think) thought it was okay to ruin someone, besides, what were they going to do? Sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry who discriminated against them? Not really. Such a movement spurred Congress to end the discussion on racial inequality once and for all, you know the rest.

If only gay rights activists and liberal pro gay rights activists took the approach specifically covered in the third, fourth and fifth principle, I would guarantee that there would be a more broad understanding and sympathy towards gay rights and equality, moreso than exists at this point in time.

When did MLK preach that we should tolerate racism?

Is gay now a race???? WTF?

Argue with the OP. It's his analogy. His equation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This will be sure to set some liberals aflame:

As if fundamentalist Christians never try to invoke the fear of God in their rants...

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


tolerance and acceptance of gays as equal citizens is a civil rights issue. Calling a gay union a marriage is a cultural or societal issue, it has nothing to do with rights or equality.

.

That is absolutely false. It is widely held by the anti-gay marriage crowd that gays should not be allowed legal gay marriage because their marriages are not equal to opposite sex marriages.

 

[Redfish]

I often see them comparing the gay struggle for equality to that of the African American struggle for racial equality, "same bullshit, different decade" they contend. Well, true, but not in the way they think. The comparison is flawed, for two reasons.

Yeah, I know what's coming too, the standard volley of how "gays should be allowed to marry" or "why do you hate gays?" or the run of the mill cherrypicked Bible verse or two. I've seen it all pretty much. The whole playbook. So for those of you intent on repeating that tired rhetoric, can it.

The short version:

Reason 1: Martin Luther King sought understanding through tolerance and understanding during the Civil Rights movement. In fact, he didn't speak in terms of tolerance, but of love, a Christian based love. He employed a doctrine passivity, not subversion. Even in the face of having the lives his and his fellow African Americans torn apart by racist sentiments and policies, they chose not to do the same to their oppressors. This attitude allowed for no further division of an already helplessly, racially divided America.

Reason 2: Homosexual and Liberal gay rights activists want to force you to be understanding and tolerant of their cause for equality, without ever being understanding or tolerant themselves. Amounting to nothing more than a vengeful, subversive doctrine of unyielding, unwavering tolerance at whatever cost; to be especially employed towards Christian private business owners. This allows for further division between them and those the LGBT rights movement is trying to reach.

The rest of it:

For King, nothing would ever advance the cause of equality by repaying intolerance with intolerance, hatred with hatred, or violence with violence. "Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that," he said. That however is in stark contrast to how the gay rights movement has decided to react to the assumed hatred and bigotry on the behalf of religious private business owners.

The Kingsian philosophy of tolerance, passivity and nonviolence consisted of six main principles:

1) First he said, one can resist evil without resorting to violence.

2) Second, nonviolence seeks to win the ‘‘friendship and understanding’’ of the opponent, not to humiliate him (King, Stride, p.84).

3) Furthermore, third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed.

4) Fourth, he continued, is that those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive.

5) Fifthly, nonviolent resistance avoids ‘‘external physical violence’’ and ‘‘internal violence of spirit’’ as well: ‘‘The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him" (King, Stride, p.85). The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape, which means ‘‘understanding,’’ or ‘‘redeeming good will for all men’’ (King, Stride, p.86).

6) Lastly, he states the sixth principle, which was that the nonviolent resister should have a ‘‘deep faith in the future,’’ stemming from the conviction that ‘‘the universe is on the side of justice’’ (King, Stride, p.88).

King held the philosophy akin to the old folk hymn, "keep your eyes on the prize." To be frank, that prize wasn't putting some unwitting business owner out on the street for being racist or intolerant. Yeah, business owners were racist and intolerant back then, but not even they (the blacks, and most of them I'd think) thought it was okay to ruin someone, besides, what were they going to do? Sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry who discriminated against them? Not really. Such a movement spurred Congress to end the discussion on racial inequality once and for all, you know the rest.

If only gay rights activists and liberal pro gay rights activists took the approach specifically covered in the third, fourth and fifth principle, I would guarantee that there would be a more broad understanding and sympathy towards gay rights and equality, moreso than exists at this point in time.

Sad that you have such a poor understanding of history

We heard the same arguments fifty years ago as we hear today......States rights, you are forcing me to accept people against my will, I have a right to serve who I please, the bible supports me

Gays have been discriminated against for centuries, they have been cast to the shadows and given second class status

It is a civil rights issue

tolerance and acceptance of gays as equal citizens is a civil rights issue. Calling a gay union a marriage is a cultural or societal issue, it has nothing to do with rights or equality.

Society as a whole should decide what words are used to describe a legal gay union, not the minority gay community.

We have representative government in this country.

Yes, we do, so lets let our "representatives" vote. Lets process a constitutional amendment making gay marriage legal in all states, then see if you can get 38 states to ratify it.

A matter like this should not be decided by 9 unelected old farts in black robes.

 

[Bfgrn]

"Same bullshit, different decade: What members of the gay rights movement could learn from history"

Only you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans have failed to learn from history.

And the lesson you've failed to learn is that Americans disadvantaged by force of law, subject to discrimination solely because of who they are, will fight to realize their comprehensive civil rights and ultimately prevail, regardless the efforts of conservatives to deny citizens their civil rights.

Sorry but please cite any law that disadvantages gays. There are none.

Protections Denied to Same-sex Couples and Their Kids

Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.

Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.

Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.

Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.

Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.

Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.

Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.

Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.

Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.

Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.

Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.

Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.

Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.

Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.

 

[rightwinger]

I often see them comparing the gay struggle for equality to that of the African American struggle for racial equality, "same bullshit, different decade" they contend.

You've got it all wrong, TK. It's not the struggle that is compared. Nobody is comparing race to sexual orientation (despite both being imutable traits). What is compared (and 100% comparable) is the bigotry and discrimination. There is no difference between racist bigots of yore and anti gay bigots of today...except their target. (right down to the language used)



Anti-miscegenation argument:

Connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion. (Virginia Supreme Court ruling, 1878)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

There are some truths that are in fact eternal and based on nature and nature's law. And that's what the church teaches and that's what the Bible teaches and that's what reason dictates. (Rick Santorum on CNN, 2011)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

White race-purity is the cornerstone of our civilization. Its mongrelization with non-white blood, particularly with Negro blood, would spell the downfall of our civilization. (Lothrop Stoddard, lawyer and eugenicist, 1924)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

The family is the bedrock of our society. Unless we protect it with the institution of marriage, our country will fall. (Rick Santorum in Iowa, 2011)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

By marrying outside of your race, no matter what that race is, and then having children of mixed race, you destroy God's original design for your race. The offspring of interracial unions are no longer God's intended creation. (SaveYourHeritage.com)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

There is no such thing as a homosexual version of human nature. ... Homosexual behavior is biologically destructive to human health, and biologically destructive behavior is biologically unnatural by functional definition. -- North Carolina Family Policy Council, Why Not Same-Sex 'Marriage,' 2011)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

People who engage in the sin of interracial marriage need to reflect upon the offspring they will parent. What race will these children identify with? We know of a child who asked her maternal grandmother when she would turn white like her. ... The above-mentioned child put powder all over herself one day, in an attempt to look like her mother. This, of course, did not work. It will never work, and this child will suffer for her mother's sin forever. (SaveYourHeritage.com)

Same-sex marriage argument:

Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids. ... Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity -- either mothers or fathers -- are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let's not confuse them further. (National Organization for Marriage,Marriage Talking Points)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Intermarriage between whites and blacks ... is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania. (U.S. Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry, D-Ga., 1912)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

It is unreasonable ... to believe there is no public interest in how marriage is structured except to affirm whatever attractions people have. If so, pedophiles would be married to children, necrophiles to dead bodies, pornophiles to pictures and exhibitionists to strangers. (Family Policy Council, Why Not Same-Sex 'Marriage,' 2011)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. (Leon Bazile, Virginia trial court judge, 1965)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

It's pretty simple: marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a historic doctrine driven deep into the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, and it's a perfect example of what I mean by the rise of paganism. (Newt Gingrich on a conference call, 2012)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Isaac was forbidden to marry into the Canaanites and a wife was selected for him from his kindred, Rebekah. Jacob was warned to take a wife from his own kindred. The Israelite tribes descended from Jacob were expressly told not to marry outside of their race, their own kind of people. (SaveYourHeritage.com)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

The Bible is so clear in its support of heterosexual marriage there is little need for us to go through an exhaustive definition of biblical marriage versus the types of unions allowed by law today. All the scriptures in the Bible concerning marriage presuppose heterosexual marriage. (Bishop Henry R. Jackson Jr., for CNN)

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Today, the heritage that these noble men passed to their posterity is under attack. White heritage is considered 'racist,' 'bigoted,' 'hateful,' among other negative connotations. ... Add the word 'Christian' with the word 'white' and the hatred for our culture and heritage gets almost maniacal. Christianity is mocked, laughed at and disregarded as something for weirdoes or extremists. (SaveYourHeritage.com)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

We've been hammered by the left for my standing up for the traditional family, and I will continue to do so. The left, unfortunately, participates in bullying more than the right does. They say that they're tolerant, and they're anything but tolerant of people who disagree with them and support traditional values. (Rick Santorum on WGIR radio, 2011)

Conservatives are using the same arguments and tactics they used fifty years ago

Failed them then......is failing now

 

[Redfish]

[


tolerance and acceptance of gays as equal citizens is a civil rights issue. Calling a gay union a marriage is a cultural or societal issue, it has nothing to do with rights or equality.

.

That is absolutely false. It is widely held by the anti-gay marriage crowd that gays should not be allowed legal gay marriage because their marriages are not equal to opposite sex marriages.

If thats true, then you should have no objection to letting the people of every state vote on a constitutional amendment. right?