This Ain't Montgomery and YOU Ain't Rosa Parks!

I have yet to see compelling evidence that homosexuality is a part of a person's genetic makeup.

I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why this matters. Religion isn't genetic. Just a thought

"I have yet to see a "straights only" lunch counter, or homosexuals being sent to the back of the bus. You aren't kicked out of public swimming pools, no governor is standing at the schoolhouse door to bar your entrance"

Blacks are obviously "different."

Blacks are obviously "different."

Anyone who thinks that many (not all, but many) homosexuals don't choose to display their "differences" have never spent much time around some of them. Go to a Gay Rights rally sometime, you will see a museum of Gay "stereotypes". ;~D

That being said, the biggest reason I think the Gay Marriage issue is not akin to the Civil Rights movement is, what is the Gay Marriage Activists out to protect?

When a Gay Marriage activist is being interviewed, the question of Plural Marriage and other "alternate" lifestyles comes up. Invariably they want to distance themselves from any other alternative lifestyle. "If the polygamists want to fight for their cause, they should be here arguing their case", is a common rebuttal to the question.

Well, did Rosa Parks say, "Well, we deserve to be able to choose where we want to sit, but keep them Irish, Rednecks and Mormons in the back where they belong!"

No, she made her statement with her gesture, and the Civil Rights movement fought for the equality of all under the law.

You can't cry "equality" out of one side of your mouth and blatantly exclude everyone but your demographic from the fight.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for the whole, "The government has no business sticking their nose in our relationship" argument. Since marriage is a contract between a couple and the government, it is pretty ironice to tell the government it has no right to be involved in a relationship as a means of insisting the government get involved in the relationship. ;~D

Blacks are obviously "different."

Anyone who thinks that many (not all, but many) homosexuals don't choose to display their "differences" have never spent much time around some of them. Go to a Gay Rights rally sometime, you will see a museum of Gay "stereotypes". ;~D

That being said, the biggest reason I think the Gay Marriage issue is not akin to the Civil Rights movement is, what is the Gay Marriage Activists out to protect?

When a Gay Marriage activist is being interviewed, the question of Plural Marriage and other "alternate" lifestyles comes up. Invariably they want to distance themselves from any other alternative lifestyle. "If the polygamists want to fight for their cause, they should be here arguing their case", is a common rebuttal to the question.

Well, did Rosa Parks say, "Well, we deserve to be able to choose where we want to sit, but keep them Irish, Rednecks and Mormons in the back where they belong!"

No, she made her statement with her gesture, and the Civil Rights movement fought for the equality of all under the law.

You can't cry "equality" out of one side of your mouth and blatantly exclude everyone but your demographic from the fight.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for the whole, "The government has no business sticking their nose in our relationship" argument. Since marriage is a contract between a couple and the government, it is pretty ironice to tell the government it has no right to be involved in a relationship as a means of insisting the government get involved in the relationship. ;~D

i respect your opinions but mus disagree with parts.well it is not as extreme as the segregation of blacks so long ago, its the same ideals on a granted,much, smaller scale. i also disagree with the coice issue (visit my link below)
i made a poston my views a couple days ago. it was my first post. check it out
https://www.politicalmachine.com/forums.asp?MID=3&CMID=259&AID=77288
its also in the us domestic section

Anyone who thinks that many (not all, but many) homosexuals don't choose to display their "differences" have never spent much time around some of them

"Choose" being the keyword. They don't have to. Blacks have no choice.

"Choose" being the keyword. They don't have to.

So you say. But, what the hell do you know? Though some gays may choose, most don't. It's an internal reponse to whatever stimulus they respond to. And so what? What if they do choose? So what? It's their choice. Does that mean they can be denied employment, housing, equal protection under the law, etc.? Also, who are we to judge that a person should be denied access to his/her partner's hospital room, health benefits, death benefits, whatever, just because those two happened to be partners for years, and they truly love eachother, and care for eachother, and pay taxes, work hard? It is definitely a civil rights issue. Equal rights for everyone. Period. No one is asking for special, or different, or more rights. Just equal rights. Civil rights. Period.

Who the hell are we to judge? That is what this is about. It's not about sitting at the back of the bus. It's not about being black or white or yellow or green. It's about societal fair play. Choice is what makes us free. Take away the choices and we've got nothing but a religion-based notion of what is acceptable in society, and that is unconstitutional. Those who would say it's not about their religious beliefs are fooling themselves. It's about somebody's religious beliefs, which permeated into your societal beliefs.

Saying that this not the same as being black is a specious argument, tantamount to a lie. Human rights are human rights are human rights.

So you say. But, what the hell do you know?

This from the person who is repeatedly told that she's ignorant.

The Civil Rights movement was about skin color, not lifestyle.

Though some gays may choose, most don't. It's an internal reponse to whatever stimulus they respond to. And so what? What if they do choose? So what? It's their choice.

I wasn't saying they choose to be gay, I was saying they choose to display it.

While there are some who disagree with me, I have yet to see compelling evidence that homosexuality is a part of a person's genetic makeup. If it were, would there be a large number of people who left the homosexual lifestyle? Think about it. Sure, you can insist that they're living contrary to their nature, but that's a weak argument at best.

Could it not be a recessive trait? Like with straight carriers of a gay gene?

I wasn't saying they choose to be gay, I was saying they choose to display it.

Do people who are straight "choose to display" that they are straight?

Why should one group of people be allowed to express themselves, but not another?

Do people who are straight "choose to display" that they are straight?

they sure do. but being straight is the "norm" and many people are assumed to be so. its not obviuos that they're different but when you see a man and a awoman holding hands in the mall, thats a proclamation of their sexuality just as much as it is when gay people hold hands in the mall or wear shirts or have bumper stickers that proclaim their sexuality. some gays are proud (gay pride) and some view it as a peaceful protest against society. They have now come out with "Straight Pride" T-shirts. even as a huge supporter of gay rights i find this hilarious and just great. If straight people want to have a parade to embrace and shine the light on their sexuality, they should absolutely be allowed to do so. I think they dont because heterosexuality is such a common thing they dont see the need (perhaps - that was only a guess). Unfortunately, the do seem to feel the need to instead try to demonize, degrade, and otherwise harm homosexuality and things that homosexuals are fighting for

Equal rights for everyone. Period. No one is asking for special, or different, or more rights. Just equal rights. Civil rights. Period.

This is my point Dabe. The gay marriage activists use the arguments for "Equal Rights", but then they say they don't care about the rights of anyone but Gay couples.

What if a man and 3 women love each other, or a woman and 3 men? If they are really in love, why shouldn't they be able to marry? What if a 25 year old teachers truly loves a 13 year old student? What if a father truly loves his daughter and want to marry?

The point is, Gay Marriage activists are not about "equality", they are about Gay Marriage. So, they should come out and say that that's all they are about. But that doesn't sound as compelling as "we just want equal rights for all" does it.

Letr's suppose that 'gay' in this context means 'gay American citizen' (as opposed to gay Resident Aliens, gay illegal aliens, or gay citizens of somewhere else other than America).

Restricting the argument in this way immediately puts an end to debates over whether being homosexual is a matter of nature, nurture, or some combination of both. Whatever its origins, homosexuality is a form of sexual behaviour between citizens. As such, its nature is irrelevant when considering if homosexual citizens have a right to one form of social regulation of that behaviour - in this case, marriage.

It also puts an end to debates over whether or not being homosexual is a 'proper' civil rights issue or not. Because no American citizen of any sexual orientation has a right to marry. There is no Constitutional right to marry granted to anyone - marriage is a status closely regulated by government, denied to those whose blood relationship is deemed to be too close, to the mentally incapacitated, and to minors.

Gay American citizens have no right to marry. Neither do straight American citizens.

It could be argued that there is a natural right to marry, simply in virtue of gays being human. Natural Rights can be deduced from the basic natural conditions of human existence and apply to all human beings as such. There is, for instance, the natural right of the child to the care provided by its parents (and the natural obligation of the parents to provide that care).

There is the Natural Right, enshrined in the Constitution, to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.

But there is not and cannot be a Natural Right to participate in a social ritual which, by definition, is not natural but artificial and contingent upon the existence of a set of social circumstances which are themselves transient and impermanent.

So y'all can stop bitching over whether faggots have a right to marry. They don't.

They could be granted such a right by government. They could be granted a right to a ritual specific to the needs of homosexuals that would be unavailable to heterosexuals. But that would be a debate over whether such a right should be granted and the form it would take. And I doubt it would be conducted in an adult manner, just as this debate is not conducted in an adult manner.

I like living here, but I find Americans' obsession with who is fucking who childish, prurient, and vaguely disgusting.

People fuck. Get over it.

There is the Natural Right, enshrined in the Constitution, to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. But there is not and cannot be a Natural Right to participate in a social ritual which, by definition, is not natural but artificial and contingent upon the existence of a set of social circumstances which are themselves transient and impermanent.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. They called Marriage a fundamental right. That was back in the 60s, when they struck down bans against interracial marriage.

I totally agree. The homosexuality movement is nowhere near the civil rights movement. Hell, it’s not even close to the women’s rights movement.

Homosexuals were not forced to be under educated, drink from different water fountains, told that the can not vote or there vote is only worth a third of a normal vote. No sitting on the back of the bus here.


While I don't think all gay people choose to be gay (lets face it nature is nature and people can be born different from the norm... this includes sexual orientation so someone CAN be born gay just like someone CAN be born transsexual... it happens and it certainly is not a choice)


I find this amusing that people want it to be a civil rights movement. The fact that they can even speak to the issue is because or people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King who spoke to the OVERALL issue of human rights and civility.

Parading it in your face? You live in an interesting neighborhood. Or perhaps you mean parading in the sense of wearing wedding rings, having naked women mud flaps, and putting pictures of your spouse and children up everywhere.

Let's attack the straw man of the gay rights activist who doesn't care about anyone else's rights. I'm a gay activist and I definitely care. I also feel that any relationship that is contractually standardized by the government should follow a policy of extended that freedom to any adult, regardless of race, financial status, creed, gender and any other social class status. So not all activists or gay marriage supporters are the same. I also fully support any church's right to NOT recognize same sex marriage within the church.

Most gay people don't choose to be gay. There is hoards of evidence supporting this claim, and you all can whine about it as much as you want, but it doesn't change the facts. While we don't know specfically that there is a "gay gene", most agree that the propensity toward homosexuality isn't a conscious choice; the decision (if decision it is) is made in the depths of the psyche, not while browsing a menu of lifestyle options. Yes, the gay community owes a great deal of debt to human rights pioneers such as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr. and the myriad of others who came before us. That doesn't mean the push for gay rights isn't civil rights, simply because someone else was there first.

Civil rights is a push among any group to resolve disenfranchisement from constitutionally guaranteed rights. This can occur among a racial minority, a gender majority, a religious group, and even those of an alternate sexual orientation.

Let's look at a brief history of the gay rights movement, shall we? The modern gay rights movement started when a bunch of police raided the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village: a gay bar. This was the straw the broke the camel's back. After years of enforced hatred and stupidity being put into law (Eisenhower making it illegal for any homosexual to hold down a federal job in the 50's, for example). Gays fought back, there was a riot, and the aftermath lead to the modern movement for gay rights. It was heterosexuals who started it. At that point, there were no pride parades, no Queer as Folk as televison. Homosexuals did what you would still like them to do: they skulked along in the background, hiding themselves from the rest of the world. But the rest of the world wouldn't let us be.

The recent striking down of sodomy laws across the nation was based on a landmark case where a gay couple was having sex in the privacy of their own home, when police burst in and then arrested them for sodomy. It was the police who started it.

As soon as policy makers in this country began creating laws that treated homosexuals differently than other citizens, they created a social minority defined by sexual orientation. So bleat and blather about it all you want. Every time you claim that gays are this way or gays are that way, you redifine the boundary lines and strengthen the perceptions that lead to minority status.

Personally, I'm for marriage being defined in two ways: as a social contract and as a religious contract. The Constitution is set up so that the government shouldn't interefere in the latter, but has no right to pick and choose to whom they may extend the former. Like it or don't like it, I don't much care. If you're arguing against gay marriage because your undies are all in a twist that gay people have the audacity to think they're a minority status, stop treating them that way and the division will go away and you'll be right. If you're arguing from a moral perspective, read some Jefferson, read the Constitution and then get over yourself. If you're arguing from a perspective of religious belief, get to a church and lock the doors, then practice whatever beliefs you see fit. If you're one of those nut jobs who thinks that the sanctity of one's own marriage will be defined by what legal rights I may or may not have, see a therapist. Seriously.

Parading it in your face? You live in an interesting neighborhood. Or perhaps you mean parading in the sense of wearing wedding rings, having naked women mud flaps, and putting pictures of your spouse and children up everywhere.

Let's attack the straw man of the gay rights activist who doesn't care about anyone else's rights. I'm a gay activist and I definitely care. I also feel that any relationship that is contractually standardized by the government should follow a policy of extended that freedom to any adult, regardless of race, financial status, creed, gender and any other social class status. So not all activists or gay marriage supporters are the same. I also fully support any church's right to NOT recognize same sex marriage within the church.

Most gay people don't choose to be gay. There is hoards of evidence supporting this claim, and you all can whine about it as much as you want, but it doesn't change the facts. While we don't know specfically that there is a "gay gene", most agree that the propensity toward homosexuality isn't a conscious choice; the decision (if decision it is) is made in the depths of the psyche, not while browsing a menu of lifestyle options. Yes, the gay community owes a great deal of debt to human rights pioneers such as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr. and the myriad of others who came before us. That doesn't mean the push for gay rights isn't civil rights, simply because someone else was there first.

Civil rights is a push among any group to resolve disenfranchisement from constitutionally guaranteed rights. This can occur among a racial minority, a gender majority, a religious group, and even those of an alternate sexual orientation.

Let's look at a brief history of the gay rights movement, shall we? The modern gay rights movement started when a bunch of police raided the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village: a gay bar. This was the straw the broke the camel's back. After years of enforced hatred and stupidity being put into law (Eisenhower making it illegal for any homosexual to hold down a federal job in the 50's, for example). Gays fought back, there was a riot, and the aftermath lead to the modern movement for gay rights. It was heterosexuals who started it. At that point, there were no pride parades, no Queer as Folk as televison. Homosexuals did what you would still like them to do: they skulked along in the background, hiding themselves from the rest of the world. But the rest of the world wouldn't let us be.

The recent striking down of sodomy laws across the nation was based on a landmark case where a gay couple was having sex in the privacy of their own home, when police burst in and then arrested them for sodomy. It was the police who started it.

As soon as policy makers in this country began creating laws that treated homosexuals differently than other citizens, they created a social minority defined by sexual orientation. So bleat and blather about it all you want. Every time you claim that gays are this way or gays are that way, you redifine the boundary lines and strengthen the perceptions that lead to minority status.

Personally, I'm for marriage being defined in two ways: as a social contract and as a religious contract. The Constitution is set up so that the government shouldn't interefere in the latter, but has no right to pick and choose to whom they may extend the former. Like it or don't like it, I don't much care. If you're arguing against gay marriage because your undies are all in a twist that gay people have the audacity to think they're a minority status, stop treating them that way and the division will go away and you'll be right. If you're arguing from a moral perspective, read some Jefferson, read the Constitution and then get over yourself. If you're arguing from a perspective of religious belief, get to a church and lock the doors, then practice whatever beliefs you see fit. If you're one of those nut jobs who thinks that the sanctity of one's own marriage will be defined by what legal rights I may or may not have, see a therapist. Seriously.

This from the person who is repeatedly told that she's ignorant.

You all can call me ignorant until the cows come home. That does not make it so. Fact is, you're ridiculously ignorant. And judgmental. And, you all must live with your heads up your asses, if you think gay rights are not about civil rights.

Gay rights is an extention of civil rights for all; a continuation but NOT an equal.



Gay rights is about civil rights.... but it is not a repeat of the whole civil rights movement. Without the civil rights movement, there would be no talk about anything gay rights at all. Without the civil rights movement, all a gay person would have to do is pretend he or she is not gay in public. Obviously, a black man can not pretend he is not black in public and a woman can not pretend she is not a woman in public.



Gay rights is not a whole scale revolution that will dramatically change the American landscape. Gay rights activists can fight for what they are doing BECAUSE of people like Mr. King and Ms. Parks yet while their focus was on people of color, their goal was for EVERYONE to be treated as human beings. When you name a gay person who had to endur drinking out of a 'gay' water fountain, you let me know.

Let's attack the straw man of the gay rights activist who doesn't care about anyone else's rights. I'm a gay activist and I definitely care.

So, you are also pushing for legalization of polygamy and the right for adult siblings and parent/offspring to marry, along with same sex marriage?

While we don't know specfically that there is a "gay gene", most agree that the propensity toward homosexuality isn't a conscious choice;

I'd have to agree that the propensity towards homosexuality is not always a choice, but acting upon them is. I don't buy that excuse because our society is full of restrictions (both legal and social). Being married, I may feel attracted to other women, but I don't act on those attractions. A pedophile feels attractions towards kids, yet we don't celebrate their relationships. What makes homosexuality so special that we should force societal change?

I am all for equality for all. Being gay shouldn't keep you from renting or buying a place to live; in almost all cases, it shouldn't keep you from getting a job; and under no circumstances should it justify someone attacking you. However, as I've said before, unless they support marriage for other "alternative lifestyles", "equality" is not what gay activists are after.

True, not all gay activists are are the same, anymore than all of any "acivists" are, I'm just going on what I have seen and heard while on the news and while doing medic support for Gay rights rallies and gay culture activities.

Who the hell are we to judge? That is what this is about. It's not about sitting at the back of the bus. It's not about being black or white or yellow or green. It's about societal fair play. Choice is what makes us free. Take away the choices and we've got nothing but a religion-based notion of what is acceptable in society, and that is unconstitutional.

BullSh*t.

It's not about choice to be gay. It's not about civil rights. All that the gay community wants (as regard to this issue) is to be seen in the eyes of the law as something that they can never be. Marriage is one man and one woman. That may be an unpopular view but it is the right one, or at the very least this one man's opinion. The government jumped in and made something that a purely religious thing and made it a legal issue.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a homophobe or a gay basher. I don't take any issue with people who choose to be gay (All the medical studies in the world will never prove that there is a gay or straight gene, it's is about a psychological preference. Psychopaths have a chemical imbalance, but they are still 100 % human just like the rest of us. Same thing goes for homosexuals, chemically something is different than a straight person.) Let them have health benefits and all of the other rights associated with being a married couple, just don't call it that. Just because it offends them that they don't get that title, don't discount my opinion that it offends me if they do.

And Dabe... How far are you willing to go to allow someone’s rights? Is it only until it offends you? Need I mention a certain flag and your disgust over its use?

what about Jay and his hetero life-mate Silent Bob, aren't they entitled too

i also disagree with the coice issue (visit my link below) i made a poston my views a couple days ago. it was my first post. check it out

So you're saying that homosexuals that go back to being heterosexual are living a lie? Sorry, I disagree. I DO, however, respect your RIGHT to make an intelligent decision for yourself.

Could it not be a recessive trait? Like with straight carriers of a gay gene?

Could be. I have many off topic reasons for believing it's not, but I won't go into them because it detracts from my larger point; that the gay rights movement is about the right to make CHOICES when consenting adults are involved, even if those choices may conflict with our own values.

The thing is, this is a "pursuit of happiness" issue. It IS, and remains, about the right of adults to live their lives free of government interference. Incidentally, I DO believe the same rights should be extended to the polygamous, polyamorous, and other "deviant" lifestyles, provided that they involve CONSENTING ADULTS, and do not use force. If the homosexual community would press this as a choice issue and not a "civil rights" issue, I think they'd be a lot better off.