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

[rightwinger]

This will be sure to set some liberals aflame:

The convictions Duck Boy holds and the type of compassion Jesus preached are mutually exclusive.

That hairy man is not a true "Christian".

Jesus never preached about giving to the State to carry out HIS work. Why can't you Liberals comprehend that?

At the time, the purpose of government was to make the rulers richer

The idea of actually helping "We the People" came much later

OK. So where does "We The People" mean that Christians should listen to WE THE PEOPLE over Jesus Christ directly? WE THE PEOPLE takeover the State, it's still the State.

You liberals cherry pick so much about Jesus, where did he say that The People come before him? Also, based on your logic, part of the People are saying that marriage should be between man and woman and site the Bible while the other part of We the People are saying same sex marriage. Full disclosure: I support same sex marriage but also support the right for WE THE PEOPLE to view otherwise.

Believe it or not.....We the People got together and formed our own government

Jesus didn't have that option

 

[LeftofLeft]

This will be sure to set some liberals aflame:

The convictions Duck Boy holds and the type of compassion Jesus preached are mutually exclusive.

That hairy man is not a true "Christian".

Jesus never preached about giving to the State to carry out HIS work. Why can't you Liberals comprehend that?

At the time, the purpose of government was to make the rulers richer

The idea of actually helping "We the People" came much later

OK. So where does "We The People" mean that Christians should listen to WE THE PEOPLE over Jesus Christ directly? WE THE PEOPLE takeover the State, it's still the State.

You liberals cherry pick so much about Jesus, where did he say that The People come before him? Also, based on your logic, part of the People are saying that marriage should be between man and woman and site the Bible while the other part of We the People are saying same sex marriage. Full disclosure: I support same sex marriage but also support the right for WE THE PEOPLE to view otherwise.

Believe it or not.....We the People got together and formed our own government

Jesus didn't have that option

So, if you are going to hold Christians accountable to the teachings of Jesus Christ, should Christians put Jesus first or turn to We The People for guidance on Jesus? Who ranks higher, WE THE PEOPLE's GOVERNMENT or Jesus?

 

[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

Perhaps you should try reading harder. Amongst King's principles were acts of passivity, namely things that avoided "humiliation" and "violence of the spirit." Instead of wanting to take someone down (not through violence) refuse to hate them. A lot of applications that can be used today.

You don't understand the deeper context of these principles, do you?

I'm not asking LGBT people to be silent, I'm asking them to be civil. That's it.

They ARE civil. What's YOUR complaint?

 

[Bfgrn]

This will be sure to set some liberals aflame:

The convictions Duck Boy holds and the type of compassion Jesus preached are mutually exclusive.

That hairy man is not a true "Christian".

Jesus never preached about giving to the State to carry out HIS work. Why can't you Liberals comprehend that?

Jesus didn't write the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. We, the People are NOT a theocracy.

 

[Bfgrn]

This thread proves beyond a shadow of a doubt this truism...

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have always fought to restrict them are conservatives.


"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression"
Thomas Jefferson

 

[rightwinger]

The convictions Duck Boy holds and the type of compassion Jesus preached are mutually exclusive.

That hairy man is not a true "Christian".

Jesus never preached about giving to the State to carry out HIS work. Why can't you Liberals comprehend that?

At the time, the purpose of government was to make the rulers richer

The idea of actually helping "We the People" came much later

OK. So where does "We The People" mean that Christians should listen to WE THE PEOPLE over Jesus Christ directly? WE THE PEOPLE takeover the State, it's still the State.

You liberals cherry pick so much about Jesus, where did he say that The People come before him? Also, based on your logic, part of the People are saying that marriage should be between man and woman and site the Bible while the other part of We the People are saying same sex marriage. Full disclosure: I support same sex marriage but also support the right for WE THE PEOPLE to view otherwise.

Believe it or not.....We the People got together and formed our own government

Jesus didn't have that option

So, if you are going to hold Christians accountable to the teachings of Jesus Christ, should Christians put Jesus first or turn to We The People for guidance on Jesus? Who ranks higher, WE THE PEOPLE's GOVERNMENT or Jesus?

Let's see..

I vote for the one that is not a myth

 

[LeftofLeft]

This will be sure to set some liberals aflame:

The convictions Duck Boy holds and the type of compassion Jesus preached are mutually exclusive.

That hairy man is not a true "Christian".

Jesus never preached about giving to the State to carry out HIS work. Why can't you Liberals comprehend that?

Jesus didn't write the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. We, the People are NOT a theocracy.

You are saying that Christians should put The Constitution above Jesus?? Which is the higher priority for Christians?

Jesus never preached about giving to the State to carry out HIS work. Why can't you Liberals comprehend that?

At the time, the purpose of government was to make the rulers richer

The idea of actually helping "We the People" came much later

OK. So where does "We The People" mean that Christians should listen to WE THE PEOPLE over Jesus Christ directly? WE THE PEOPLE takeover the State, it's still the State.

You liberals cherry pick so much about Jesus, where did he say that The People come before him? Also, based on your logic, part of the People are saying that marriage should be between man and woman and site the Bible while the other part of We the People are saying same sex marriage. Full disclosure: I support same sex marriage but also support the right for WE THE PEOPLE to view otherwise.

Believe it or not.....We the People got together and formed our own government

Jesus didn't have that option

So, if you are going to hold Christians accountable to the teachings of Jesus Christ, should Christians put Jesus first or turn to We The People for guidance on Jesus? Who ranks higher, WE THE PEOPLE's GOVERNMENT or Jesus?

Let's see..

I vote for the one that is not a myth

Which one is the myth? Teachings of Jesus or We The People's Government?

 

[bodecea]

Members of the Gay Community should ask CAIR about standing with them on same sex.

We know they don't. What's your point?

 

[bodecea]

This will be sure to set some liberals aflame:

The convictions Duck Boy holds and the type of compassion Jesus preached are mutually exclusive.

That hairy man is not a true "Christian".

Jesus never preached about giving to the State to carry out HIS work. Why can't you Liberals comprehend that?

At the time, the purpose of government was to make the rulers richer

The idea of actually helping "We the People" came much later

OK. So where does "We The People" mean that Christians should listen to WE THE PEOPLE over Jesus Christ directly? WE THE PEOPLE takeover the State, it's still the State.

You liberals cherry pick so much about Jesus, where did he say that The People come before him? Also, based on your logic, part of the People are saying that marriage should be between man and woman and site the Bible while the other part of We the People are saying same sex marriage. Full disclosure: I support same sex marriage but also support the right for WE THE PEOPLE to view otherwise.

You want a theocracy....what if it's not the religion you want?

 

[bodecea]

This will be sure to set some liberals aflame:

The convictions Duck Boy holds and the type of compassion Jesus preached are mutually exclusive.

That hairy man is not a true "Christian".

Jesus never preached about giving to the State to carry out HIS work. Why can't you Liberals comprehend that?

Jesus didn't write the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. We, the People are NOT a theocracy.

You are saying that Christians should put The Constitution above Jesus?? Which is the higher priority for Christians?

At the time, the purpose of government was to make the rulers richer

The idea of actually helping "We the People" came much later

OK. So where does "We The People" mean that Christians should listen to WE THE PEOPLE over Jesus Christ directly? WE THE PEOPLE takeover the State, it's still the State.

You liberals cherry pick so much about Jesus, where did he say that The People come before him? Also, based on your logic, part of the People are saying that marriage should be between man and woman and site the Bible while the other part of We the People are saying same sex marriage. Full disclosure: I support same sex marriage but also support the right for WE THE PEOPLE to view otherwise.

Believe it or not.....We the People got together and formed our own government

Jesus didn't have that option

So, if you are going to hold Christians accountable to the teachings of Jesus Christ, should Christians put Jesus first or turn to We The People for guidance on Jesus? Who ranks higher, WE THE PEOPLE's GOVERNMENT or Jesus?

Let's see..

I vote for the one that is not a myth

Which one is the myth? Teachings of Jesus or We The People's Government?

Let's go with you and your belief for a second. Where did Jesus say not to bake cakes for gay people?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Apparently, according to your theory, the Visigoths were on the "right side of history," whatever that is supposed to mean.

 

[TemplarKormac]

They ARE civil. What's YOUR complaint?

How are they civil when they vandalize churches, attack praying priests, engage in militant style activism and threaten people who disagree with their lifestyle? I've posted plenty of examples in the past.

 

[LeftofLeft]

This will be sure to set some liberals aflame:

The convictions Duck Boy holds and the type of compassion Jesus preached are mutually exclusive.

That hairy man is not a true "Christian".

Jesus never preached about giving to the State to carry out HIS work. Why can't you Liberals comprehend that?

Jesus didn't write the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. We, the People are NOT a theocracy.

You are saying that Christians should put The Constitution above Jesus?? Which is the higher priority for Christians?

OK. So where does "We The People" mean that Christians should listen to WE THE PEOPLE over Jesus Christ directly? WE THE PEOPLE takeover the State, it's still the State.

You liberals cherry pick so much about Jesus, where did he say that The People come before him? Also, based on your logic, part of the People are saying that marriage should be between man and woman and site the Bible while the other part of We the People are saying same sex marriage. Full disclosure: I support same sex marriage but also support the right for WE THE PEOPLE to view otherwise.

Believe it or not.....We the People got together and formed our own government

Jesus didn't have that option

So, if you are going to hold Christians accountable to the teachings of Jesus Christ, should Christians put Jesus first or turn to We The People for guidance on Jesus? Who ranks higher, WE THE PEOPLE's GOVERNMENT or Jesus?

Let's see..

I vote for the one that is not a myth

Which one is the myth? Teachings of Jesus or We The People's Government?

Let's go with you and your belief for a second. Where did Jesus say not to bake cakes for gay people?

When Conservative Christians question how much money is being asked of them to the State, liberals remind them the need to be more giving as Jesus said. Jesus did say we need to give to the Church and to the poor. So, it is the liberals that insert the State, not Jesus. So why are you bringing up baking cakes for gay people?

 

[rightwinger]

The convictions Duck Boy holds and the type of compassion Jesus preached are mutually exclusive.

That hairy man is not a true "Christian".

Jesus never preached about giving to the State to carry out HIS work. Why can't you Liberals comprehend that?

Jesus didn't write the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. We, the People are NOT a theocracy.

You are saying that Christians should put The Constitution above Jesus?? Which is the higher priority for Christians?

Believe it or not.....We the People got together and formed our own government

Jesus didn't have that option

So, if you are going to hold Christians accountable to the teachings of Jesus Christ, should Christians put Jesus first or turn to We The People for guidance on Jesus? Who ranks higher, WE THE PEOPLE's GOVERNMENT or Jesus?

Let's see..

I vote for the one that is not a myth

Which one is the myth? Teachings of Jesus or We The People's Government?

Let's go with you and your belief for a second. Where did Jesus say not to bake cakes for gay people?

When Conservative Christians question how much money is being asked of them to the State, liberals remind them the need to be more giving as Jesus said. Jesus did say we need to give to the Church and to the poor. So, it is the liberals that insert the State, not Jesus. So why are you bringing up baking cakes for gay people?

What difference does it make as long as the poor are taken care of?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals.

And this statement all but reveals your ignorance of liberalism, and history. The liberal you are, and what the liberals in our early American history were are light years apart. Classical liberalism maximized individual freedom, including those freedoms granted to the religious. Modern liberals like you see religious belief as an affront to the freedom of a certain segment of people, and as such it must be tempered to preserve the freedom of those few. But classical liberals worked to preserve freedom for all individuals. It didn't engage in this "selective freedom" bullshit you espouse to.

The term "liberal" has the root word "liberty" which in and of itself implies lack of restriction. The word liberalism itself also comes from the same root as liberty. It has meanings of openness to change and a lack of restriction. Over time though, people like you have changed your ideas of what restricts and what doesn't.

 

[rightwinger]

The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals.

And this statement all but reveals your ignorance of liberalism, and history. The liberal you are, and what the liberals in our early American history were are light years apart. Classical liberalism maximized individual freedom, including those freedoms granted to the religious. Modern liberals like you see religious belief as an affront to the freedom of a certain segment of people, and as such it must be tempered to preserve the freedom of those few. But classical liberals worked to preserve freedom for all individuals. It didn't engage in this "selective freedom" bullshit you espouse to.

The term "liberal" has the root word "liberty" which in and of itself implies lack of restriction. The word liberalism itself also comes from the same root as liberty. It has meanings of openness to change and a lack of restriction. Over time though, people like you have changed your ideas of what restricts and what doesn't.

Liberals have always been liberals
The issues and challenges of society evolve overtime.....but there have always been liberals to undertake those challenges

And always conservatives to oppose them

 

[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.

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

Perhaps you should try reading harder. Amongst King's principles were acts of passivity, namely things that avoided "humiliation" and "violence of the spirit." Instead of wanting to take someone down (not through violence) refuse to hate them. A lot of applications that can be used today.

You don't understand the deeper context of these principles, do you?

I'm not asking LGBT people to be silent, I'm asking them to be civil. That's it.

MLK actively engaged in the economic destruction of the Birmingham transit system to advance his cause.

Why are you trying to hide from that fact?

 

[TemplarKormac]

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression"
Thomas Jefferson

"A pure Democracy, by which I mean, a Society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

-James Madison, Federalist #10

What you want is a democracy to represent the few, one which doesn't reflect the will of the rest. While the majority doesn't rule America, the minority shouldn't hijack it. You have all of 1.5% of the American population dictating policy for the other 98.5%. James Madison warned against this, and here we are, watching one of his biggest fears come true.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals.

And this statement all but reveals your ignorance of liberalism, and history. The liberal you are, and what the liberals in our early American history were are light years apart. Classical liberalism maximized individual freedom, including those freedoms granted to the religious. Modern liberals like you see religious belief as an affront to the freedom of a certain segment of people, and as such it must be tempered to preserve the freedom of those few. But classical liberals worked to preserve freedom for all individuals. It didn't engage in this "selective freedom" bullshit you espouse to.

The term "liberal" has the root word "liberty" which in and of itself implies lack of restriction. The word liberalism itself also comes from the same root as liberty. It has meanings of openness to change and a lack of restriction. Over time though, people like you have changed your ideas of what restricts and what doesn't.

Liberalism turned to the government to aid its causes when it became clear that the private sector, capitalism, business, etc.,

were more dangerous than was government.

And rightly so.

 

[bodecea]

They ARE civil. What's YOUR complaint?

How are they civil when they vandalize churches, attack praying priests, engage in militant style activism and threaten people who disagree with their lifestyle? I've posted plenty of examples in the past.

Yes...post where churches were vandalized, praying priests attacked, etc.