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

[Derideo_Te]

"Because there's nothing wrong with being gay"
That is the exact method of selling a lie.

Or stating a simple truth. That you feel otherwise doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with you is 'lying'.

But can you say that, because you don't agree with me, I am not a bigot?

Are people who "disagree" that blacks should be able to marry whites bigots?

Let me check........


.



.



Yes

And I agree, as well.
Race isn't a chemical imbalance in the brain.

However.......

Onus is on you to prove that it is a "chemical imbalance in the brain" that makes people gay.

 

[rightwinger]

Or stating a simple truth. That you feel otherwise doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with you is 'lying'.

But can you say that, because you don't agree with me, I am not a bigot?

We certainly disagree. As I'm not hamstrung with your assumptions, I can assess the intention and the harm caused by any given action and glean its morality accordingly. Stealing and oathbreaking cause harm to other people. Homosexuality doesn't.

If a gay couple gets married......nothing happens to you. You're simply unaffected. If a gay couple stole from you, you lose property. And you're most definitely effected.

So the first act wouldn't be immoral or a 'sin' because it causes no harm nor is intended to. While the second is an intentional act to take from you. And would qualify in my opinion.

Thank you for that concession (I think)
But I disagree that one of these things cause no harm in that it is contrary to why I believe we were created as male and female (to go forth and multiply)
Now, mind you, I only speak of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior NOT "gay marriage".
Gays SHOULD have just as much "right" to lose half of their shit in divorce as I do.
I simply object to being called a hateful bigoted homophobe because I don't buy into the hard sell that gay is normal

Should we have laws that only normal people are allowed to get married?

And who gets to make that call?

It has something to do with whether some people consider your relationship to be "yucky"

 

[Skylar]

Usually the issue isn't if non 'normal' people can get married. But to whom.

Or what.

 

[hortysir]

I think the 4 of us managed a reasonably civil discussion without being hateful or "yucky"

 

[Seawytch]

Or stating a simple truth. That you feel otherwise doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with you is 'lying'.

But can you say that, because you don't agree with me, I am not a bigot?

We certainly disagree. As I'm not hamstrung with your assumptions, I can assess the intention and the harm caused by any given action and glean its morality accordingly. Stealing and oathbreaking cause harm to other people. Homosexuality doesn't.

If a gay couple gets married......nothing happens to you. You're simply unaffected. If a gay couple stole from you, you lose property. And you're most definitely effected.

So the first act wouldn't be immoral or a 'sin' because it causes no harm nor is intended to. While the second is an intentional act to take from you. And would qualify in my opinion.

Thank you for that concession (I think)
But I disagree that one of these things cause no harm in that it is contrary to why I believe we were created as male and female (to go forth and multiply)
Now, mind you, I only speak of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior NOT "gay marriage".
Gays SHOULD have just as much "right" to lose half of their shit in divorce as I do.
I simply object to being called a hateful bigoted homophobe because I don't buy into the hard sell that gay is normal

You can believe that all you want...just like you can believe that left-handed people aren't normal, that Jews aren't normal, that short people aren't normal. Just don't try to legislate against us.

Ok.

Then it's best settled by the courts and/or state legislatures.
Just don't put it on my ballot

We didn't want it on your ballot. Civil rights should never be put up for popular vote.

 

[bendog]

What's really yucky and creepy is this.

Dennis Hastert Hid His Skeletons As He Helped Push GOP s Anti-Gay Agenda

 

[Seawytch]

"Because there's nothing wrong with being gay"
That is the exact method of selling a lie.

Or stating a simple truth. That you feel otherwise doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with you is 'lying'.

But can you say that, because you don't agree with me, I am not a bigot?

We certainly disagree. As I'm not hamstrung with your assumptions, I can assess the intention and the harm caused by any given action and glean its morality accordingly. Stealing and oathbreaking cause harm to other people. Homosexuality doesn't.

If a gay couple gets married......nothing happens to you. You're simply unaffected. If a gay couple stole from you, you lose property. And you're most definitely effected.

So the first act wouldn't be immoral or a 'sin' because it causes no harm nor is intended to. While the second is an intentional act to take from you. And would qualify in my opinion.

Thank you for that concession (I think)
But I disagree that one of these things cause no harm in that it is contrary to why I believe we were created as male and female (to go forth and multiply)
Now, mind you, I only speak of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior NOT "gay marriage".
Gays SHOULD have just as much "right" to lose half of their shit in divorce as I do.
I simply object to being called a hateful bigoted homophobe because I don't buy into the hard sell that gay is normal

You can believe that all you want...just like you can believe that left-handed people aren't normal, that Jews aren't normal, that short people aren't normal. Just don't try to legislate against us.

And don't be surprised when you get called a bigot for saying things like "there's something wrong with gays".

 

[hortysir]

But can you say that, because you don't agree with me, I am not a bigot?

We certainly disagree. As I'm not hamstrung with your assumptions, I can assess the intention and the harm caused by any given action and glean its morality accordingly. Stealing and oathbreaking cause harm to other people. Homosexuality doesn't.

If a gay couple gets married......nothing happens to you. You're simply unaffected. If a gay couple stole from you, you lose property. And you're most definitely effected.

So the first act wouldn't be immoral or a 'sin' because it causes no harm nor is intended to. While the second is an intentional act to take from you. And would qualify in my opinion.

Thank you for that concession (I think)
But I disagree that one of these things cause no harm in that it is contrary to why I believe we were created as male and female (to go forth and multiply)
Now, mind you, I only speak of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior NOT "gay marriage".
Gays SHOULD have just as much "right" to lose half of their shit in divorce as I do.
I simply object to being called a hateful bigoted homophobe because I don't buy into the hard sell that gay is normal

You can believe that all you want...just like you can believe that left-handed people aren't normal, that Jews aren't normal, that short people aren't normal. Just don't try to legislate against us.

Ok.

Then it's best settled by the courts and/or state legislatures.
Just don't put it on my ballot

We didn't want it on your ballot. Civil rights should never be put up for popular vote.

My state calls for a 60% majority vote, by ballot, for any amendment to the state constitution

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yet both are equally subjective, and both just as irrelevant legally and Constitutionally.

WRONG

Religious belief and personal opinion are covered under the 1st Amendment and are both otherwise known as "free expression." That makes them both legally and constitutionally relevant. If you are as competent with case law as you think you are, you know there are a litany of SCOTUS opinions backing me up here.

You can't really be this stupid; or perhaps you are.

Your personal opinions and religious beliefs are legally and Constitutionally irrelevant as justification to deny gay Americans their civil rights.

 

[bodecea]

But can you say that, because you don't agree with me, I am not a bigot?

We certainly disagree. As I'm not hamstrung with your assumptions, I can assess the intention and the harm caused by any given action and glean its morality accordingly. Stealing and oathbreaking cause harm to other people. Homosexuality doesn't.

If a gay couple gets married......nothing happens to you. You're simply unaffected. If a gay couple stole from you, you lose property. And you're most definitely effected.

So the first act wouldn't be immoral or a 'sin' because it causes no harm nor is intended to. While the second is an intentional act to take from you. And would qualify in my opinion.

Thank you for that concession (I think)
But I disagree that one of these things cause no harm in that it is contrary to why I believe we were created as male and female (to go forth and multiply)
Now, mind you, I only speak of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior NOT "gay marriage".
Gays SHOULD have just as much "right" to lose half of their shit in divorce as I do.
I simply object to being called a hateful bigoted homophobe because I don't buy into the hard sell that gay is normal

Should we have laws that only normal people are allowed to get married?

And who gets to make that call?

It has something to do with whether some people consider your relationship to be "yucky"

I find relationships between obese people to be yucky, and yet they get to marry.

 

[Lilah]

Or stating a simple truth. That you feel otherwise doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with you is 'lying'.

But can you say that, because you don't agree with me, I am not a bigot?

We certainly disagree. As I'm not hamstrung with your assumptions, I can assess the intention and the harm caused by any given action and glean its morality accordingly. Stealing and oathbreaking cause harm to other people. Homosexuality doesn't.

If a gay couple gets married......nothing happens to you. You're simply unaffected. If a gay couple stole from you, you lose property. And you're most definitely effected.

So the first act wouldn't be immoral or a 'sin' because it causes no harm nor is intended to. While the second is an intentional act to take from you. And would qualify in my opinion.

Thank you for that concession (I think)
But I disagree that one of these things cause no harm in that it is contrary to why I believe we were created as male and female (to go forth and multiply)
Now, mind you, I only speak of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior NOT "gay marriage".
Gays SHOULD have just as much "right" to lose half of their shit in divorce as I do.
I simply object to being called a hateful bigoted homophobe because I don't buy into the hard sell that gay is normal

Should we have laws that only normal people are allowed to get married?

Normal is relative.

We do, however, have laws that only "normal people" can buy guns

James Holmes bought an arsenal of guns. Are you saying he's normal?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What gays could learn from Martin Luther King...

1. Use economic boycotts, hit them in the wallet.

2. Use the Courts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

14th amendment

not one of you has yet posted the language from the 14th where the words "gay marriage" appear.

we'll be waiting-----------------------------------------

The part that says...."all people"

All people means marriage? You must speak a different dialect of English than the rest ofus, Nutwhacker.

I believe the law says "all persons"

Now, if they were willing to say "all persons except for homosexuals" you might have a point

It doesnt. Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as anyone else. Presently two heterosexual men cannot marry either.

You can marry a woman. If woman can't marry a woman, she does not have the same rights you do.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This sums a lot of liberals in this thread up quite nicely.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But can you say that, because you don't agree with me, I am not a bigot?

We certainly disagree. As I'm not hamstrung with your assumptions, I can assess the intention and the harm caused by any given action and glean its morality accordingly. Stealing and oathbreaking cause harm to other people. Homosexuality doesn't.

If a gay couple gets married......nothing happens to you. You're simply unaffected. If a gay couple stole from you, you lose property. And you're most definitely effected.

So the first act wouldn't be immoral or a 'sin' because it causes no harm nor is intended to. While the second is an intentional act to take from you. And would qualify in my opinion.

Thank you for that concession (I think)
But I disagree that one of these things cause no harm in that it is contrary to why I believe we were created as male and female (to go forth and multiply)
Now, mind you, I only speak of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior NOT "gay marriage".
Gays SHOULD have just as much "right" to lose half of their shit in divorce as I do.
I simply object to being called a hateful bigoted homophobe because I don't buy into the hard sell that gay is normal

Should we have laws that only normal people are allowed to get married?

Normal is relative.

We do, however, have laws that only "normal people" can buy guns

James Holmes bought an arsenal of guns. Are you saying he's normal?

If the gun nuts had their way with open carry, he wouldn't have had to prowl around. He could have just walked in the front door with that arsenal,

bought a ticket,

and went in and sat down.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This sums a lot of liberals in this thread up quite nicely.

A gaudy display of sore loserness

 

[NYcarbineer]

This sums a lot of liberals in this thread up quite nicely.

Bigotry is the only explanation for being opposed to same sex marriage. No one's come up with a reason that doesn't involve simple bigotry.

 

[hortysir]

But can you say that, because you don't agree with me, I am not a bigot?

We certainly disagree. As I'm not hamstrung with your assumptions, I can assess the intention and the harm caused by any given action and glean its morality accordingly. Stealing and oathbreaking cause harm to other people. Homosexuality doesn't.

If a gay couple gets married......nothing happens to you. You're simply unaffected. If a gay couple stole from you, you lose property. And you're most definitely effected.

So the first act wouldn't be immoral or a 'sin' because it causes no harm nor is intended to. While the second is an intentional act to take from you. And would qualify in my opinion.

Thank you for that concession (I think)
But I disagree that one of these things cause no harm in that it is contrary to why I believe we were created as male and female (to go forth and multiply)
Now, mind you, I only speak of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior NOT "gay marriage".
Gays SHOULD have just as much "right" to lose half of their shit in divorce as I do.
I simply object to being called a hateful bigoted homophobe because I don't buy into the hard sell that gay is normal

Should we have laws that only normal people are allowed to get married?

Normal is relative.

We do, however, have laws that only "normal people" can buy guns

James Holmes bought an arsenal of guns. Are you saying he's normal?

Given his mental state, no he shouldn't have been allowed to purchase the guns.
But in order to make that kind of information accessible in background checks we have to worry about HPPA privacy laws.
Not to further derail the thread, but if 2 pistols, a shotgun and a rifle is an "arsenal". I must have a small country's armory in my closet

 

[Lilah]

We certainly disagree. As I'm not hamstrung with your assumptions, I can assess the intention and the harm caused by any given action and glean its morality accordingly. Stealing and oathbreaking cause harm to other people. Homosexuality doesn't.

If a gay couple gets married......nothing happens to you. You're simply unaffected. If a gay couple stole from you, you lose property. And you're most definitely effected.

So the first act wouldn't be immoral or a 'sin' because it causes no harm nor is intended to. While the second is an intentional act to take from you. And would qualify in my opinion.

Thank you for that concession (I think)
But I disagree that one of these things cause no harm in that it is contrary to why I believe we were created as male and female (to go forth and multiply)
Now, mind you, I only speak of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior NOT "gay marriage".
Gays SHOULD have just as much "right" to lose half of their shit in divorce as I do.
I simply object to being called a hateful bigoted homophobe because I don't buy into the hard sell that gay is normal

Should we have laws that only normal people are allowed to get married?

Normal is relative.

We do, however, have laws that only "normal people" can buy guns

James Holmes bought an arsenal of guns. Are you saying he's normal?

Given his mental state, no he shouldn't have been allowed to purchase the guns.
But in order to make that kind of information accessible in background checks we have to worry about HPPA privacy laws.
Not to further derail the thread, but if 2 pistols, a shotgun and a rifle is an "arsenal". I must have a small country's armory in my closet

I was unaware you knew him on a personal basis. My bad.

 

[hortysir]

Thank you for that concession (I think)
But I disagree that one of these things cause no harm in that it is contrary to why I believe we were created as male and female (to go forth and multiply)
Now, mind you, I only speak of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior NOT "gay marriage".
Gays SHOULD have just as much "right" to lose half of their shit in divorce as I do.
I simply object to being called a hateful bigoted homophobe because I don't buy into the hard sell that gay is normal

Should we have laws that only normal people are allowed to get married?

Normal is relative.

We do, however, have laws that only "normal people" can buy guns

James Holmes bought an arsenal of guns. Are you saying he's normal?

Given his mental state, no he shouldn't have been allowed to purchase the guns.
But in order to make that kind of information accessible in background checks we have to worry about HPPA privacy laws.
Not to further derail the thread, but if 2 pistols, a shotgun and a rifle is an "arsenal". I must have a small country's armory in my closet

I was unaware you knew him on a personal basis. My bad.

No
Apparently I just know more about the case than you did when you pulled it out of the air