Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, there will beYes, 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.
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
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?
MLK Jr. was vilified by the White Establishment until he was safely dead.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.
Totally agree on that. I was alive back then....MLK Jr. was called a communist, an anarchist, uppity, a troublemaker, a lawbreaker....every name in the book......but now that he's safely dead.....the RW wants to pretend that he was fighting for civil rights the "correct" way.What we learned from history is that without exception, the conserveatives are on the wrong side of it and 40 years from now, you'll claim you were at the forefront of sponsoring gay marriage.
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.
Your complaint is with PA laws which people like MLK Jr. fought to establish..........think segregated lunch counters. These PA laws have been around for decades. What have YOU done to repeal them? Where have YOU been the last several decades in the fight to get rid of PA laws?How is someone getting married an act of 'hate and subversion'?
How is refusing to cater that same wedding for religious beliefs an act of hatred and bigotry? How does it stop them from getting married? I recall asking you similar questions on another thread, but you chose not to answer it. Perhaps you care to try now?
Yes, there will beAgain 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.
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
and they will and will most likely succeed. Is this really where you want our society to go? Thats the real question.
If you are ok with all forms of human groupings being called marriages, fine. But I am not, and most human beings are not.
It's amazing how they have such a selective memory of the 50s and 60s.Why is religious homophobia so much more acceptable than religious racism?
When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia
Not the Dems.....Liberals. At one time the Radical liberals were the Republicans...the Northern Republicans to be exact. That changed over time. Or are you going to show your stupidity by insisting that the Democratic Party of the 19th century is the same party with the same platform as today?What we learned from history is that without exception, the conserveatives are on the wrong side of it and 40 years from now, you'll claim you were at the forefront of sponsoring gay marriage.
You mean like the dems claim they were at the forefront of civil rights, women's rights, ending slavery, etc? You're a dumb ass
The LGBT community prefer Alinsky's rules over King's
I must point out that, in fairness, not the entire LGBT community acts in such a manner.
The LGBT community prefer Alinsky's rules over King's
I must point out that, in fairness, not the entire LGBT community acts in such a manner.
If they don't support it... They should speak up and say so because they are bring dragged down by these people.
I love how you keep saying that....no one except for you and those like you pretend that anyone is comparing race to gay. However, civil rights are civil rights regardless of whether one is being discriminated against based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. You know that..........unless you are very very stupid. I don't think you're stupid...but I DO think you are dishonest why you say things like that.I often see them comparing the gay struggle for equality to that of the African American struggle for racial equality, "same bullshit, different decade" they contend. Well, true, but not in the way they think. The comparison is flawed, for two reasons.
Yeah, I know what's coming too, the standard volley of how "gays should be allowed to marry" or "why do you hate gays?" or the run of the mill cherrypicked Bible verse or two. I've seen it all pretty much. The whole playbook. So for those of you intent on repeating that tired rhetoric, can it.
The short version:
Reason 1: Martin Luther King sought understanding through tolerance and understanding during the Civil Rights movement. In fact, he didn't speak in terms of tolerance, but of love, a Christian based love. He employed a doctrine passivity, not subversion. Even in the face of having the lives his and his fellow African Americans torn apart by racist sentiments and policies, they chose not to do the same to their oppressors. This attitude allowed for no further division of an already helplessly, racially divided America.
Reason 2: Homosexual and Liberal gay rights activists want to force you to be understanding and tolerant of their cause for equality, without ever being understanding or tolerant themselves. Amounting to nothing more than a vengeful, subversive doctrine of unyielding, unwavering tolerance at whatever cost; to be especially employed towards Christian private business owners. This allows for further division between them and those the LGBT rights movement is trying to reach.
The rest of it:
For King, nothing would ever advance the cause of equality by repaying intolerance with intolerance, hatred with hatred, or violence with violence. "Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that," he said. That however is in stark contrast to how the gay rights movement has decided to react to the assumed hatred and bigotry on the behalf of religious private business owners.
The Kingsian philosophy of tolerance, passivity and nonviolence consisted of six main principles:
1) First he said, one can resist evil without resorting to violence.
2) Second, nonviolence seeks to win the ‘‘friendship and understanding’’ of the opponent, not to humiliate him (King, Stride, p.84).
3) Furthermore, third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed.
4) Fourth, he continued, is that those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive.
5) Fifthly, nonviolent resistance avoids ‘‘external physical violence’’ and ‘‘internal violence of spirit’’ as well: ‘‘The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him" (King, Stride, p.85). The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape, which means ‘‘understanding,’’ or ‘‘redeeming good will for all men’’ (King, Stride, p.86).
6) Lastly, he states the sixth principle, which was that the nonviolent resister should have a ‘‘deep faith in the future,’’ stemming from the conviction that ‘‘the universe is on the side of justice’’ (King, Stride, p.88).
King held the philosophy akin to the old folk hymn, "keep your eyes on the prize." To be frank, that prize wasn't putting some unwitting business owner out on the street for being racist or intolerant. Yeah, business owners were racist and intolerant back then, but not even they (the blacks, and most of them I'd think) thought it was okay to ruin someone, besides, what were they going to do? Sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry who discriminated against them? Not really. Such a movement spurred Congress to end the discussion on racial inequality once and for all, you know the rest.
If only gay rights activists and liberal pro gay rights activists took the approach specifically covered in the third, fourth and fifth principle, I would guarantee that there would be a more broad understanding and sympathy towards gay rights and equality, moreso than exists at this point in time.
When did MLK preach that we should tolerate racism?
Is gay now a race???? WTF?
Blacks were subjected to some pretty sick civil rights violations and gays keep trying to equate their cause with blacks. Okay can anyone list the top 5 civil rights violation gays endure? How do they compare to what blacks endured?
When did we get a constitutional amendment in the 50s allowing inter-racial marriage?[
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?
Blacks were subjected to some pretty sick civil rights violations and gays keep trying to equate their cause with blacks. Okay can anyone list the top 5 civil rights violation gays endure? How do they compare to what blacks endured?
Exactly
Actually it was SOUTHERN Democrats and SOUTHERN Republicans who fought the civil rights bill, fillibustered it, and tried to stop it. While NORTHERN Democrats and NORTHERN Republicans supported it. You've been told this several times. Why do you insist on being so dishonest about this?Conservatives are using the same arguments and tactics they used fifty years agoI 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)
Failed them then......is failing now
Actually it was the democrats who fought the civil rights bill, fillibustered it, and tried to stop it.
He knows that...he's being dishonest.Conservatives are using the same arguments and tactics they used fifty years agoI 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)
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
What we learned from history is that without exception, the conserveatives are on the wrong side of it and 40 years from now, you'll claim you were at the forefront of sponsoring gay marriage.
You mean like the dems claim they were at the forefront of civil rights, women's rights, ending slavery, etc? You're a dumb ass
He became a liberal...started off as a Conservative Democrat in a "border" state. But again, you are being dishonest.Conservatives are using the same arguments and tactics they used fifty years agoI 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)
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.
