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

[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

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.

Equal application of our laws is a constitutional right

 

[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.

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

Actually it was the democrats who fought the civil rights bill, fillibustered it, and tried to stop it.

 

[rightwinger]

[


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?

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

You should not be allowed to vote on what rights others are allowed to have

 

[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.

Equal application of our laws is a constitutional right

Yes, it is. So I assume that you support all other forms of marriage using that same argument. polygamy, sibling marriage, multiple marriage, parent/child marriage, etc ?

How can you justify denying civil rights to these people when you demand them for gays?

 

[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

Actually it was the democrats who fought the civil rights bill, fillibustered it, and tried to stop it.

It was a north/south issue then, both democrats and republicans

One thing consistent......Conservatives opposed civil rights

 

[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?

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

You should not be allowed to vote on what rights others are allowed to have

Bullshit, all rights were put in place by MAJORITY vote. You are so full of shit on this.

 

[mdk]

TK isn't interested in any argument that doesn't buttress his own sense of victimization. What a fucking crybaby.

 

[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.

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

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

You should not be allowed to vote on what rights others are allowed to have

Bullshit, all rights were put in place by MAJORITY vote. You are so full of shit on this.

Good. Then stop bitching about 'unelected judges' upholding gay rights claims.

 

[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

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.

Equal application of our laws is a constitutional right

Yes, it is. So I assume that you support all other forms of marriage using that same argument. polygamy, sibling marriage, multiple marriage, parent/child marriage, etc ?

How can you justify denying civil rights to these people when you demand them for gays?

Again with the bogus slippery slope

In spite of Conservative opposition, homosexuality is legal in all 50 states

Polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality......is not

 

[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.

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

Actually it was the democrats who fought the civil rights bill, fillibustered it, and tried to stop it.

It was a north/south issue then, both democrats and republicans

One thing consistent......Conservatives opposed civil rights

LOL. William KKK Byrd was not a conservative. He was a liberal democrat. Throughout history democrats have said one thing and done another. Hypocrisy is their creed.

 

[rightwinger]

[


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?

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

You should not be allowed to vote on what rights others are allowed to have

Bullshit, all rights were put in place by MAJORITY vote. You are so full of shit on this.

Give me an example

 

[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.

Equal application of our laws is a constitutional right

Yes, it is. So I assume that you support all other forms of marriage using that same argument. polygamy, sibling marriage, multiple marriage, parent/child marriage, etc ?

How can you justify denying civil rights to these people when you demand them for gays?

He isn't denying those rights. The courts have heard arguments for polygamy. The courts rejected 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.

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

Actually it was the democrats who fought the civil rights bill, fillibustered it, and tried to stop it.

It was a north/south issue then, both democrats and republicans

One thing consistent......Conservatives opposed civil rights

LOL. William KKK Byrd was not a conservative. He was a liberal democrat. Throughout history democrats have said one thing and done another. Hypocrisy is their creed.

He was a conservative on racial issues for awhile. By definition to defend states rights is a conservative position.

 

[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.

Equal application of our laws is a constitutional right

Yes, it is. So I assume that you support all other forms of marriage using that same argument. polygamy, sibling marriage, multiple marriage, parent/child marriage, etc ?

How can you justify denying civil rights to these people when you demand them for gays?

Again with the bogus slippery slope

In spite of Conservative opposition, homosexuality is legal in all 50 states

Polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality......is not

If gay marriage is ruled legal, then there will be absolutely no valid legal argument that could be brought to deny all other forms of human marriage between consenting adults. That is a fact whether you like it or not.

 

[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.

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

Actually it was the democrats who fought the civil rights bill, fillibustered it, and tried to stop it.

It was a north/south issue then, both democrats and republicans

One thing consistent......Conservatives opposed civil rights

LOL. William KKK Byrd was not a conservative. He was a liberal democrat. Throughout history democrats have said one thing and done another. Hypocrisy is their creed.

Libs/dems must have slept through history classes...or attended public schools

 

[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.

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

Actually it was the democrats who fought the civil rights bill, fillibustered it, and tried to stop it.

It was a north/south issue then, both democrats and republicans

One thing consistent......Conservatives opposed civil rights

LOL. William KKK Byrd was not a conservative. He was a liberal democrat. Throughout history democrats have said one thing and done another. Hypocrisy is their creed.

Why do conservatives today revere Barry Goldwater?

 

[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.

Equal application of our laws is a constitutional right

Yes, it is. So I assume that you support all other forms of marriage using that same argument. polygamy, sibling marriage, multiple marriage, parent/child marriage, etc ?

How can you justify denying civil rights to these people when you demand them for gays?

He isn't denying those rights. The courts have heard arguments for polygamy. The courts rejected them.

Those rejections happened before there was a legal precedent set by a gay marriage ruling. I am sorry that you don't understand how our legal system works and what a legal precedent means.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Equal application of our laws is a constitutional right

Yes, it is. So I assume that you support all other forms of marriage using that same argument. polygamy, sibling marriage, multiple marriage, parent/child marriage, etc ?

How can you justify denying civil rights to these people when you demand them for gays?

Again with the bogus slippery slope

In spite of Conservative opposition, homosexuality is legal in all 50 states

Polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality......is not

If gay marriage is ruled legal, then there will be absolutely no valid legal argument that could be brought to deny all other forms of human marriage between consenting adults. That is a fact whether you like it or not.

Nonsense. Marriage is already legal.

Voting was once limited to property ownership. When voting rights were expanding, did that lead to your dog getting the right to vote?

 

[Redfish]

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

Actually it was the democrats who fought the civil rights bill, fillibustered it, and tried to stop it.

It was a north/south issue then, both democrats and republicans

One thing consistent......Conservatives opposed civil rights

LOL. William KKK Byrd was not a conservative. He was a liberal democrat. Throughout history democrats have said one thing and done another. Hypocrisy is their creed.

Why do conservatives today revere Barry Goldwater?

I guess for the same reasons that liberals revere Rosie O'Donnel. Your question is stupid, hence my answer.

 

[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.

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

Equal application of our laws is a constitutional right

Yes, it is. So I assume that you support all other forms of marriage using that same argument. polygamy, sibling marriage, multiple marriage, parent/child marriage, etc ?

How can you justify denying civil rights to these people when you demand them for gays?

Again with the bogus slippery slope

In spite of Conservative opposition, homosexuality is legal in all 50 states

Polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality......is not

If gay marriage is ruled legal, then there will be absolutely no valid legal argument that could be brought to deny all other forms of human marriage between consenting adults. That is a fact whether you like it or not.

Nonsense. Marriage is already legal.

Voting was once limited to property ownership. When voting rights were expanding, did that lead to your dog getting the right to vote?

stupic question, and failed analogy.