Gideon MacLeish Gideon MacLeish

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

▼

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

from JoeUser Forums

While I'm firmly against the idea of banning gay marriage, I am sick and tired of those who make the current puch to gay marriages out to be some sort of civil rights crusade. Put simply, it isn't.

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.

Pushing homosexual rights as a civil rights issue is the Achilles Heel of the gay rights movement. Most people simply do not believe it to be a civil rights issue, and many, myself included, see the analogy as a slap in the face of great men such as Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and the many, many others, who fought, and often died, to ensure equality for minorities. 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 (before you play the "Ryan White" card, let me remind you that, while the school's actions were appalling, Ryan White was not gay), and there are no "Jim Crow" laws to bar you from voting. No poll taxes, and no "separate but equal" education (marriage and education are VASTLY different issues, by the way).

You see, I view homosexuality as a lifestyle CHOICE. And I support, and will continue to support, your right to make that CHOICE. I also believe that your CHOICE should extend to your right to make a public commitment to the partner of your CHOICE without shame or rebuke. As I have said before, I really don't see marriage as the proper domain of the government.

If you wish to change minds and rally people to your cause, you MUST respect the ideals and values upon which their beliefs are based. And that includes the perception they have about your lifestyle. If you focused on your rights to make a choice instead of your hardheaded insistence that we accept your crusade as a new civil rights movement, you would find a few more people in your corner.

politics
20,645 views 75 replies
Reply #51 from PolMach Forums Top
I am the bisexual friend DH speaks of. it most certainly is NOT a choice. Validated? Good. also to the choice issue, I must ask you all to take a look back at latour's comment (#1). Latour said it best. This most certainly is a civil rights isssue. Marriage is a civil institution and has been deemed a "right" by the Sup. Court so dont think that just because there arent special restrooms for us, it isnt a civil rights issue. It most certainly is. I am for equal rights, but this isnt an equal rights issue. Its a Gay Marriage as a civil right issue. Its not a choice issue either. If we made it a choice issue that would be giving in to the very people we are up against on this particular issue and simply cannot do that (i understand that, technically, we can but we wont compromise that). So give us our Civil Right already. The 14th amendment says you must give it to us and all other consenting adults in similar situations. The 9th and 10th amendments back that up.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
Little_whip, why are you so judgmental? What is it about rights for gays which would possibly affect you and your life? What skin is it off your back if gays have the civil rights they are fighting for?

I agree with Latour. The Constitution calls marriage a civil right. It's only religion and self righteous believers that are trying to limit the civil rights of gays. In fact, this is very much an issue of equal protection under the law for all people, regardless of religion and creed and lifestyles. Your twisting of the Constitution to make your false argument is sorry, to say the least.

Gays are being denied rights and liberties, whether you chose to admit it or not. As I mentioned, they are not getting equal protection under the law. If a landlord chooses to not rent to someone because they are gay, that's discrimination. If an employer chooses to not hire someone because he or she is gay, that's discrimination. If a gay is beaten is he or she afraid to go to the police, because of possible harrassment? Absolutely!

There is nothing within the Constitution that would limit the rights of gays. In fact, the Constitution is about the issue of rights for all. It's not about limiting rights. In fact, if bush succeeded in pulling off his constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriages, that would be the very first such limitation of rights within the constitution for anyone based on their chosen lifestyle. It would set a horrific precedent.

I ask again - What skin is it off your back if gays are allowed to marry? I would suggest absolutely none at all, except your self rightous sense of your own religious beliefs.
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top

#59 by zinkadoodle
Thursday, June 09, 2005





Little_whip, why are you so judgmental? What is it about rights for gays which would possibly affect you and your life? What skin is it off your back if gays have the civil rights they are fighting for?

I agree with Latour. The Constitution calls marriage a civil right. It's only religion and self righteous believers that are trying to limit the civil rights of gays. In fact, this is very much an issue of equal protection under the law for all people, regardless of religion and creed and lifestyles. Your twisting of the Constitution to make your false argument is sorry, to say the least.

Gays are being denied rights and liberties, whether you chose to admit it or not. As I mentioned, they are not getting equal protection under the law. If a landlord chooses to not rent to someone because they are gay, that's discrimination. If an employer chooses to not hire someone because he or she is gay, that's discrimination. If a gay is beaten is he or she afraid to go to the police, because of possible harrassment? Absolutely!

There is nothing within the Constitution that would limit the rights of gays. In fact, the Constitution is about the issue of rights for all. It's not about limiting rights. In fact, if bush succeeded in pulling off his constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriages, that would be the very first such limitation of rights within the constitution for anyone based on their chosen lifestyle. It would set a horrific precedent.

I ask again - What skin is it off your back if gays are allowed to marry? I would suggest absolutely none at all, except your self rightous sense of your own religious beliefs.



This shows that you don't pay a lot of attention yo-yo! Or else you would KNOW that LW has NO religious beliefs like you are portraying! She's not quite an atheist but she not a "christian" either! And irregardless of what you think, show me "where" in the constitution talks about marriage at all!
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am the bisexual friend DH speaks of. it most certainly is NOT a choice.


I still don't consider that conclusive proof, goth. What SHOULD be important to you is that even though I believe it is a choice, I support your right to MAKE that choice. In fact, it appalls me that nothing more than outright sanction of your values will suffice from my end.

I do not, and WILL not "bless" your chosen lifestyle. Ain't gonna happen. Your insistence that I do so is an unreasonable imposition on my values. As long as you continue to press for acceptance and condonation of your lifestyle, you will find yourself at odds with a certain segment of the population. If you press for acceptance and tolerance of your CHOICES, however, you have MY vote at least.

Sorry, goth, I will reiterate: This ain't Montgomery, and you ain't Rosa Parks!
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
My stance on gay marraige is that if any service is provided by the government to a couple (i.e. two consenting adults) it should not be denied to any such pairing. If a man and a woman can receive such benefits and legal protections, it should be offered to two men or two women as well. Don't want it called marraige? Make the legal term for all unions "Civil Unions" Leave the same parental rights in there, leave the same protections and benefits, just change the name.

Want to be married? Go to a church, let the church hand out the title to who they see fit.

While not necessarily an issue of civil rights, it is an issue of equal application of the law not clouded by individual religious values. Christians are outraged at the attempt to pass laws and rules to limit the public display of their faith, or even in some cases to just practice their basic faith. They say how dare you deny me this because you disagree with my values? Yet they turn around and try to do the exact same thing here.

I think it's wrong for the gay rights people to try and force this as an issue of acceptance. You can't win acceptance on something people find fundamentally wrong. It's like trying to convince a moral vegan that they should learn to love hamburgers... it's just not going to happen and it's insulting to those you're trying to "convert". At best, you can demand that they tolerate your views and your lifestyle... and remember that tolerate does not mean accept, it just means they leave you alone about it. I do not generally accept really evangelical Christians, they strike me as exactly what's wrong with modern religion, but I tolerate them... They leave me alone and I leave them alone. This is a lesson that the gay activist groups could do well to learn.
Reply #57 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #58 by little_whip:

That does not mean any person can just say "ok, since it isnt listed in the Constitution, and the Constitution doesn't limit "other" rights that may or may not be granted by the STATE, I can just do whatever I please because the Constitution doesn't forbid it?


Ah, yes it does. Power of the people. Any rights not verified in the Constitution but not strictly forbidden are unstated rights as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of another citizen.

And that includes marriage.

Reply #58 by little_whip:

Therefore, it is not a civil right


So...what is marriage in general{applying to anybody who wants to get married, not just gays/bis} then? A States Right? In that case, do the states have the power to forbid marraige to straights? Not meant as an argumentative question- only to see your views on the issue.

And to go off that, as another curiosity question, do any states actually legalize marriage in their personal Constitutions? I haven't read anything but the federal one so I'm unclear as to that.

Reply #59 by zinkadoodle:

I agree with Latour. The Constitution calls marriage a civil right.


No....the Supreme court defined marriage as Constitutional. The Constitution does not say it directly, but it is included in Amendment Nine and to some extent in Amendment Ten.

Reply #61 by little_whip:

Now, it you want to argue that gay marriage should be a Constitutional Right, I'd be happy to argue as to why it should or shouldnt. But you are arguing that it's already so, and it simply isnt


Ok, I'll take you up on that, since I doubt I've ever actually heard why you think what you do. So have at it. I'm at least interested.

Cheers, Pads
Reply #58 from PolMach Forums Top
This shows that you don't pay a lot of attention yo-yo! Or else you would KNOW that LW has NO religious beliefs like you are portraying! She's not quite an atheist but she not a "christian" either! And irregardless of what you think, show me "where" in the constitution talks about marriage at all!


And latour is Canadian, hardly a constitutional expert.
Reply #59 from PolMach Forums Top
My stance on gay marraige is that if any service is provided by the government to a couple (i.e. two consenting adults) it should not be denied to any such pairing. If a man and a woman can receive such benefits and legal protections, it should be offered to two men or two women as well. Don't want it called marraige? Make the legal term for all unions "Civil Unions" Leave the same parental rights in there, leave the same protections and benefits, just change the name.

Want to be married? Go to a church, let the church hand out the title to who they see fit.


Shhhhh! I am agreeing with you again! Just dont let it out.
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #59 by zinkadoodle:

I agree with Latour. The Constitution calls marriage a civil right.


No....the Supreme court defined marriage as Constitutional. The Constitution does not say it directly, but it is included in Amendment Nine and to some extent in Amendment Ten.


I'm sorry but your going to have to show proof of this. Because I think your wrong.


#65 by DiseasedHumanity
Thursday, June 09, 2005





Reply #58 by little_whip:

That does not mean any person can just say "ok, since it isn't listed in the Constitution, and the Constitution doesn't limit "other" rights that may or may not be granted by the STATE, I can just do whatever I please because the Constitution doesn't forbid it?


Ah, yes it does. Power of the people. Any rights not verified in the Constitution but not strictly forbidden are unstated rights as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of another citizen.

And that includes marriage.


That option was tried in a court of law and failed miserably
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
Shhhhh! I am agreeing with you again! Just dont let it out.


Curse me and my rational, thought-out points again huh?
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
No....the Supreme court defined marriage as Constitutional. The Constitution does not say it directly, but it is included in Amendment Nine and to some extent in Amendment Ten.



Thank you, DH, for clearing that up. I've not had time to find it in the Constitution, and I know that marriage wasn't explicit in the Constitution. I did know, however, that equal rights and protections are.

So, LW, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

While not necessarily an issue of civil rights, it is an issue of equal application of the law not clouded by individual religious values. Christians are outraged at the attempt to pass laws and rules to limit the public display of their faith, or even in some cases to just practice their basic faith. They say how dare you deny me this because you disagree with my values? Yet they turn around and try to do the exact same thing here.


Zoomba, you have a gift of articulation. Well done. This is a great point, which Christians seem to overlook, for lack of a better term.

LW, I don't really care if you're religious or not. That was not the point. But, no question, you are supporting the Christian push to get their viewpoints and causes forwarded into political agendas. This is but one case. And again, I ask.... What affect will having gays recognized as civil unions do you find so objectionable, and what skin is it off your back if they do receive such equal protection under the law? I suspect absolutely nothing, other than you're just an overly judgmental person with too much time on your hands to blog away all goddamm day about things that do not affect you in any way whatsoever. And, while you're stuffing your pipe, shove this thought up the other end. You'll get quite the high.

Sheesh, some people.............
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top

LW, I don't really care if you're religious or not. That was not the point. But, no question, you are supporting the Christian push to get their viewpoints and causes forwarded into political agendas. This is but one case. And again, I ask.... What affect will having gays recognized as civil unions do you find so objectionable, and what skin is it off your back if they do receive such equal protection under the law? I suspect absolutely nothing, other than you're just an overly judgmental person with too much time on your hands to blog away all goddamm day about things that do not affect you in any way whatsoever. And, while you're stuffing your pipe, shove this thought up the other end. You'll get quite the high.

Sheesh, some people.............


This was ENTIRELY uncalled for! If you can't remain civil then just go away!
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
I suspect absolutely nothing, other than you're just an overly judgmental person with too much time on your hands to blog away all goddamm day about things that do not affect you in any way whatsoever. And, while you're stuffing your pipe, shove this thought up the other end. You'll get quite the high.


You just had to go and completely ruin the point you were trying to make by spouting this inflamatory crap? There was merit to what you were trying to say but you destroyed all credibility you might have had right there.

The gift of articulation/debating is one part knowing how to say what you mean, and one part knowing when to just keep your mouth shut.
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top

#73 by Zoomba
Friday, June 10, 2005





I suspect absolutely nothing, other than you're just an overly judgmental person with too much time on your hands to blog away all goddamm day about things that do not affect you in any way whatsoever. And, while you're stuffing your pipe, shove this thought up the other end. You'll get quite the high.


You just had to go and completely ruin the point you were trying to make by spouting this inflamatory crap? There was merit to what you were trying to say but you destroyed all credibility you might have had right there.

The gift of articulation/debating is one part knowing how to say what you mean, and one part knowing when to just keep your mouth shut.


Aw hell Zoom, let him alone. He destroys his credibility every time he opens his mouth!
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
The gift of articulation/debating is one part knowing how to say what you mean, and one part knowing when to just keep your mouth shut



Point well taken. I apologize, sincerely.
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler, the post was not directed at you, so STFU.
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top

#76 by zinkadoodle
Friday, June 10, 2005





drmiler, the post was not directed at you, so STFU.


Back at ya fool!
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top
*stomps foot* IT IS TOO! SO THERE!
Reply #70 from PolMach Forums Top
I posted my feelings about this on another blog. A talk show host here in Atlanta, Neal Boortz, who is a libertarian, said this in response to a gay man who felt he should have "equal" rights as straight people; you have every right in marriage that I do, you can marry any woman you want to, what you are demanding is a "special" right.

This sort of sums up my position. If we have to reword laws or rewrite or amend constitutions so that it says that a man can marry man or a woman can marry a woman, then you are awarding "special", not "equal" rights.

I am in the camp that believes homosexuality is a genetic trait, I work near the Ansley area of Atlanta which is a bastion of homosexuals. They are very nice people and pretty much want the same things in life as anyone. My Uncle is gay and I have another "uncle" that has been his partner for nearly my entire 36 years. They went to a civil union friendly state to get married because it meant something to them, but not for the benefits. They have given each other near marital rights by use of power of attorneys and well thought out wills that any straight single guy could do to make sure that his estate was handled properly.

But rewriting laws to accomodate this genetic trait is not right. Besides, the next thing you know, two resourceful, straight bachelors will play off being gay just to get the benefits of a civil union.

Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top

I have yet to be convinced that marriage is a right, period. So until I am, I stand on my original point, gays have no right to marry. No-one does.



I don't understand. Are you saying that you don't believe in the institution of marriage at all?

Also, I find it pretty disengenuous to equate gay rights and their equal protection under the law with that of disassembling the separation of church and state. Totally ridiculous, like comparing apples and oranges. A totally specious argument if ever I heard one.