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

[JoeB131]

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?

Since the acts of incest and bigamy are still against the law, there isn't an issue here.

Personally, I'd have no problem with polygamy being legal.

 

[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?

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.

Then why was interracial marriage upheld as legal AFTER polygamy wasn't?

 

[Katzndogz]

What gays should learn from history is that acceptance of homosexuality has happened before. Then they were slaughtered. Then they had to start all over again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Why? You're the one claiming the slippery slope. People are claiming that same sex marriage legality will lead to people being able to marry their pets.

 

[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?

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.

Then why was interracial marriage upheld as legal AFTER polygamy wasn't?

because the ruling on interracial marriage was based on a marriage of one man and one woman of different races.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Yes, there will be
Those actions are illegal. They would need to be legalized first

Let's look at polygamy

Personally, I have no objection to it. But if polygamists want to get married, they need to do what gays did. Fight for legalization, get laws passed, get the public behind them, make a valid legal argument

If they can do that, they can marry, just like gays and interracial couples can

 

[Redfish]

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.

Why? You're the one claiming the slippery slope. People are claiming that same sex marriage legality will lead to people being able to marry their pets.

Funny, how you libs always bring beastiality into the debate, do you have some deep down craving for animal sex?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Then why was interracial marriage upheld as legal AFTER polygamy wasn't?

because the ruling on interracial marriage was based on a marriage of one man and one woman of different races.

Make that laws about the marriage of one man and one woman of the same race

 

[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.

Yes, there will be
Those actions are illegal. They would need to be legalized first

Let's look at polygamy

Personally, I have no objection to it. But if polygamists want to get married, they need to do what gays did. Fight for legalization, get laws passed, get the public behind them, make a valid legal argument

If they can do that, they can marry, just like gays and interracial couples can

Right, anything goes in the fantasy world of winger. If it feels good to anyone, lets legalize it, you are a fuckin idiot.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Then why was interracial marriage upheld as legal AFTER polygamy wasn't?

because the ruling on interracial marriage was based on a marriage of one man and one woman of different races.

Make that laws about the marriage of one man and one woman of the same race

you didn't understand NY's question. not surprising

 

[Seawytch]

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

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent. ~ R. D. McIlwaine III, Virginia assistant attorney general​

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Then why was interracial marriage upheld as legal AFTER polygamy wasn't?

because the ruling on interracial marriage was based on a marriage of one man and one woman of different races.

So you concede that polygamy too unlike monogamy to be claimed as a part of any precedent.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Then why was interracial marriage upheld as legal AFTER polygamy wasn't?

because the ruling on interracial marriage was based on a marriage of one man and one woman of different races.

Make that laws about the marriage of one man and one woman of the same race

Yup...and anti gay laws discriminate based on gender. Since animus for gays is the sole reason these laws came about, they fall more easily than a house of cards when given judicial review.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Why? You're the one claiming the slippery slope. People are claiming that same sex marriage legality will lead to people being able to marry their pets.

Funny, how you libs always bring beastiality into the debate, do you have some deep down craving for animal sex?

See how easily I win the arguments?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Then why was interracial marriage upheld as legal AFTER polygamy wasn't?

because the ruling on interracial marriage was based on a marriage of one man and one woman of different races.

So race is protected from discrimination but not gender?

Are you sure about that ? lol

 

[Redfish]

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.

Then why was interracial marriage upheld as legal AFTER polygamy wasn't?

because the ruling on interracial marriage was based on a marriage of one man and one woman of different races.

So race is protected from discrimination but not gender?

Are you sure about that ? lol

I never said that. No one should be discriminated against because of their gender. Do you know the difference between gender and homosexuality? Are you as ignorant as you appear to be?

 

[Redfish]

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.

Why? You're the one claiming the slippery slope. People are claiming that same sex marriage legality will lead to people being able to marry their pets.

Funny, how you libs always bring beastiality into the debate, do you have some deep down craving for animal sex?

See how easily I win the arguments?

Uhhh, since you have never won one, no.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Then why was interracial marriage upheld as legal AFTER polygamy wasn't?

because the ruling on interracial marriage was based on a marriage of one man and one woman of different races.

So race is protected from discrimination but not gender?

Are you sure about that ? lol

He does not understand that preventing gays from marrying the consenting adult, non familial same sex partner of their choice is discrimination based on gender.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Then why was interracial marriage upheld as legal AFTER polygamy wasn't?

because the ruling on interracial marriage was based on a marriage of one man and one woman of different races.

So you concede that polygamy too unlike monogamy to be claimed as a part of any precedent.

Ok, lets go slow.

if the SC rules that a marriage can be between two people of the same sex that ruling would redefine marriage as something other than the union of one man and one woman.

That would establish a valid legal precedent for legalization of all forms or marriage since marriage would no longer be defined as the union of one man and one woman.

If a marriage of two women is valid then a marriage of three women is also valid using the exact same arguments.

I know you refuse to understand because you don't like where this will lead, but what I have said is correct and the ACLU is already working on cases of multiple person marriage.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Yes, there will be
Those actions are illegal. They would need to be legalized first

Let's look at polygamy

Personally, I have no objection to it. But if polygamists want to get married, they need to do what gays did. Fight for legalization, get laws passed, get the public behind them, make a valid legal argument

If they can do that, they can marry, just like gays and interracial couples can

Right, anything goes in the fantasy world of winger. If it feels good to anyone, lets legalize it, you are a fuckin idiot.

Twenty years ago, the concept of gay marriage was a fantasy. In their wildest dreams, gays could have hoped for some type of civil union
In a couple weeks, same sex marriage will be the law of the land

That did not happen by magic or luck. Homosexuals fought for their rights and gained support of legislators, the courts, the media and the public

Other groups are welcome to do the same