Issues concerning gays -- part XXXVVV

[Arrian]

What would have happened had Frederick Douglas compromised?

He didn't?

You overstate your persecution, Funman, do the detriment of your argument (which is mostly valid, IMO).

-Arrian

[MrFun]

To make some kind of pecking order of different experiences of different minority groups is ridiculous.

You cannot deny legitimate parallels between past civil rights movements and today's civil rights movement.

[Arrian]

Parallels, sure. Just don't stretch them too far, or you risk losing the support of moderates. I know you believe in moderation, so this shouldn't be difficult for you to grasp.

Comparing the current struggle over gay marriage to slavery is, IMO, similar to invoking Godwin. Comparing it to the Civil Rights movement (MLK) is less of a stretch.

-Arrian

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Arrian
Parallels, sure. Just don't stretch them too far, or you risk losing the support of moderates. I know you believe in moderation, so this shouldn't be difficult for you to grasp.

Comparing the current struggle over gay marriage to slavery is, IMO, similar to invoking Godwin. Comparing it to the Civil Rights movement (MLK) is less of a stretch.

-Arrian

Part of the history of United States, involves several distinct periods in which a movement emerged to extend civil rights to a specific minority group of people.

The current 21st century civil rights movement for gays and their straight allies is the contemporary continuation of that history.

[Solly]

Originally posted by MrFun


What would have happened if Martin Luther King Jr. had compromised? What would have happened had feminist activists compromised? What would have happened had Frederick Douglas compromised?

This debate is nothing like that. This is a moral issue, not an absolute one. This time it's just gays arguing out of self-interest and their pussyboy camp friends with them. The sensible right are truly right again.

[Patroklos]

What would have happened if Martin Luther King Jr. had compromised? What would have happened had feminist activists compromised? What would have happened had Frederick Douglas compromised?

Not the same thing by a long shot. And if you think there was no compromise reached on those debates then god help you. How many stages of almost slaves, them second class citizens, and then citizens with extra rights have those two groups gone though? It is not like black people said in 1965, "well, since we didn't get everything we think we should, we will just stay in abject slavery untill you give us what you want." Your arguement aside, your approach is ludacris.

Then again, denying you the word marrigage is just dictionary sense (though I have noticed alot of online dictionaries giving an * explaination that now in might in some circles not refer to man and woman) not bigotry, racism, homophobia since you like that word, or anything else associated with a civil rights movement.

This faction of the gay rights movement is like the black pathers or bra burners, wackos who are a liability to the true cause and ultimately delaying a real triumph.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Patroklos
None of your second class responces make sence. This is not seperate but equal. This isn't the same entity bieng given out seperatly. This is different but equal. Marriage is between a man and a woman, you only arguement against it is "I disagree" (similarly that is your detractors only arguement too).

Actually, your argument is only that marriage is between a man and woman.

You can't really back it up. Only your religion says it is wrong. There isn't really evidence to back yourself up either. Given the site I posted, you should see plenty of evidence on it backing me up. There is nothing legal about "seperate but equal". That's already been proven to be greatly contradictory, as one does not equal the other. In this case, CIVIL UNIONS DO NOT EQUAL MARRIAGE, and never will based on how you people want it.

Marriage and civil unions are different entities. They mean different things. But there is nothing stopping a marriage and civil union from being legally equal. The only thing keeping it from being morally equal, which is your illogical opinion since civil union meets the practical goals of economic and legal statis, is the gay communities inability to accept it, followed by the Christian community.

The differences between a marriage and civil union is that a marriage is given more benefits, and recognization nation-wide. Civil unions aren't even recognized in most states, so your own argument is full of illogical fallacies. I don't give a damn about the fundamentalist christian communities in this country. It isn't their choice to cut down the rights of minorities. This is a country where everybody is free and allowed to marry the one they love.

And homophobia, again, is an actual psychological fear, and actually has nothing to do with hate. The majority of your detractors don't hate you, they find you odd and weird, but that is not hate. I find golf players odd and weird, but I don't hate them. But go ahead and sling that word about, it has for all intents and purposes become meaningless from such usage already.

Homophobia is a psychological fear indeed. And I think you have enough of it. I think plenty of christians have it. It is tied to hate. You hate things you fear. Don't compare me to golf players.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Patroklos
This faction of the gay rights movement is like the black pathers or bra burners, wackos who are a liability to the true cause and ultimately delaying a real triumph.

You're a true bigot. It is these people fighting for our rights against great oppressive thugs as yourself, you'd probably end up poisoning people like they did to that one opposition candidate in Ukraine. We are standing up for our rights, and the only liability to equal rights is people as yourself.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Don't compare me to golf players.

That has to be one of the most classically absurd lines ever. I love it!

[Patroklos]

You're a true bigot.

OMFG I said something against your opinion, I must be a bigot!

But in true apolyton fashion shouldn't you use Nazi?

Giancarlo, all you have done throughout this thread is prove the point. You are mindless zealot who is counterproductive to your cause. I want you to have all the benefits that marriage offeres others, however when reactionary political shock troopers start shouting slurs, I am tempted just to say **** your cause out of spite to little twits like you.

And of course, that is exactly the state your cause is in now. It it really wasn't a particularly nice hill to die on either.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Giancarlo, all you have done throughout this thread is prove the point. You are mindless zealot who is counterproductive to your cause. I want you to have all the benefits that marriage offeres others, however when reactionary political shock troopers start shouting slurs, I am tempted just to say **** your cause out of spite to little twits like you.

You are the one who is a mindless zealot. I'm merely defending my view point and criticizing the opposing side. I provided evidence to back myself up, rather on the other hand you have provided ZERO EVIDENCE. You are arguing against democracy and equal rights. You might as well be arguing for segregation. I want marriage. And i'm not a reactionary political shock trooper as yourself. We want marriage, and I will not stop arguing for it until we get it. I don't give a **** what you think or say. You can't determine anything here. You are a great anti-equal rights bigot.

And of course, that is exactly the state your cause is in now. It it really wasn't a particularly nice hill to die on either.

You don't know what you are talking about. My cause has gained us many equal rights in the past decade. We have gained and gained. And you have lost and lost. And guess what? YOU WILL CONTINUE TO LOSE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ON THE SIDE OF FREEDOM. You probably claim you support democracy for the Iraqis, but once it comes to gay americans, you wouldn't dream of it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Patroklos


OMFG I said something against your opinion, I must be a bigot!

Don't worry -- at least I don't think you're a bigot.

[Patroklos]

You can't really back it up. Only your religion says it is wrong. There isn't really evidence to back yourself up either. Given the site I posted, you should see plenty of evidence on it backing me up. There is nothing legal about "seperate but equal". That's already been proven to be greatly contradictory, as one does not equal the other. In this case, CIVIL UNIONS DO NOT EQUAL MARRIAGE, and never will based on how you people want it.

You are correct, it hasn't been offered in every state because you broke discourse on the posibility. Don't expect others do do you revelutionary work for you.

And once again, in every instance it was offered, it was the complete mirror to marriage legally. If it is not socially accepted as equal to marriage, welcome to the world of new things. When enough theme parks have to pay money out to law suits, you will get your family discount too. But why do you care if some fundy Christian recognizes your marriage if your rights are legally guarunteed?

You do care G, and that is your hangup. You want the "I won nah nah nah."

Homophobia is a psychological fear indeed. And I think you have enough of it. I think plenty of christians have it. It is tied to hate. You hate things you fear. Don't compare me to golf players.

As is true with golfphobia, why do you hate them bigot (for good measure )

[Patroklos]

Don't worry -- at least I don't think you're a bigot.

It is the reason I don't mind discussing this in your threads.

And I like it when you call me Patty Cakes.....

[MrFun]

ok, Patty Cakes