What good is your "support" if you're not even familiar with the obvious and tremendous legal disadvantages that the LGBT community faces? You're the one that said this: "They have all the laws necessary to protect them against discrimination and crimes." Clearly, that's not accurate - not even close.
Clearly you are trying to focus on "1" statement out of many that I have made and take it out of the context of the whole picture of what I have said. There are more laws to protect gay people in the US than any other country that I know of, but of course that may not be accurate either because I am not familiar with the laws of most other countries. I do feel though that the US is leading on this issue, also just a perception. Since many of you love to compare the gay rights movement to the black civil rights movement, I don't think the African-American movement for civil rights would have been as successful if they only accepted support from people that were "negro lovers" as one enlightened poster of your supporters put it.
Respectfully, if you're going to debate something to the degree that you're doing you should at least be informed about what you're discussing. Everybody makes mistakes (myself included). But an egregious statement of that nature is pretty bad and one that I hope you don't really believe. And FWIW, the US is most certainly not leading the way for LBGT rights advancement. There are 14 countries that already permit same-sex marriage (something the SCOTUS should issue a sweeping ruling on but doesn't have the stones to do) across the country. The situation in the US is improving...but at a snail's pace.
Respectfully, I am informed well enough on the issue to have my own opinion about things whether you or anyone else feels that I reach your level of being informed enough or not. I will again state that my point was to point out that there are laws and other laws that need to be written to protect gay people. I don't think that there should be a "marriage" law passed, but that "civil unions" should be permitted that give all the legal benefits that "married couples" have. I think if gay people stopped trying to infringe upon the beliefs and values of religious people or even people who are not religious but just don't believe "marriage" is between other than a man and a woman, they would get the laws necessary to still give them the rights that they are supposedly fighting for. The problem is that they want EVERYONE to like, love and respect their lifestyle choice, not just protect it under the law. If you want to continue to take my statement out of context based on the literal words and ignore everything I said before it and after it to make your point, feel free. What I believe hasn't or won't change, only your false interpretation of what you think I believe is being stated.
Nobody is trying to misrepresent your beliefs. You've posted quite a bit on this issue - something that for whatever reason is deeply personal to you. I was just taken aback by such a a patently false and misinformed statement being made. Nothing was taken out of context. It is what it is: a regrettable and obviously false statement. You said it, I pointed it out, we've discussed it. We can move on. And again, the majority of gay people are not concerned with religious approval. Nobody is going to force churches to perform ceremonies or recognize anything that they don't want to. The primary issue at hand are the 1,100+ federal benefits that are being denied to same-sex couples for no logical purpose. It makes absolutely no sense to me that somebody could be comfortable with same-sex couples finally being able to access the same benefits that a heterosexual couple can yet being uncomfortable with sharing the term "marriage". Playing the semantics game is yet another losing argument but to each his own. Give them benefits but call it something else? I don't get it.
Of course you don't get it, it doesn't matter to you. Call it a civil-union and get the rights that the movement wants. What's more important, the legal rights, or the name the legal rights are actually called? Why does the movement insist upon offending billions of religious people around the world, or millions here in the US just to have legal rights named a particular way, when they can have those same legal rights much easier with a different name? Sounds like the agenda isn't just legal rights against discrimination and crimes. MARRIAGE: marry (v.) c.1300, "to give (offspring) in marriage," from Old French marier "to get married; to marry off, give in marriage; to bring together in marriage," from Latin maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (source of Italian maritare, Spanish and Portuguese maridar), from maritus (n.) "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, originally a past participle, perhaps ultimately from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE root *mari- "young wife, young woman," akin to *meryo- "young man" (cf. Sanskrit marya- "young man, suitor"). Meaning "to get married, join (with someone) in matrimony" is early 14c. in English, as is that of "to take in marriage." Said from 1520s of the priest, etc., who performs the rite. Figurative use from early 15c. Related: Married; marrying. Phrase the marrying kind, describing one inclined toward marriage and almost always used with a negative, is attested by 1824, probably short for marrying kind of men, which is from a popular 1756 essay by Chesterfield. In some Indo-European languages there were distinct "marry" verbs for men and women, though some of these have become generalized. Cf. Latin ducere uxorem (of men), literally "to lead a wife;" nubere (of women), perhaps originally "to veil" [Buck]. Also cf. Old Norse kvangask (of men) from kvan "wife" (cf. quean), so "take a wife;" giptask (of women), from gipta, a specialized use of "to give" (cf. gift (n.)) so "to be given." The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."[11] The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition." "[12] For what it's worth, if anything.
Brother, are you dense? The whole point is that you should have the right to freely love and openly expressly love for anyone regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. I used the term "negro lover" to make the point that many people in the 60's felt the same way about interracial relationships as you do now about homosexual relationships. Do you feel there should be laws preventing different races from getting married? If not, why any restrictions on gay marriage? Do you believe a white athlete should be able to publicly say "I ain't no negro lover"? If not, why is ""no homo" acceptable?
It doesn't work like that. There are more ghettos with white people in them in American than black people, especially trailer parks. So while homo clearly identifies same sex attraction, ghetto is not exclusive to black people. Futhermore, your example is not you acting "ghetto" and therefore pointing out you are not "black", but it is you trying to call other people "ghetto" and then pointing out that you are not black. Do you even recognize this failure of similarity on it's different levels?
Dude you just don't get it, are you mentally challenged? Your premise is based on the assumption that being gay is accepted equally as the same as being black, African-American. I have given you enough reasons to point out why enough people don't accept that as fact, regardless if you agree with them or not. Marriage has a history and tradition of being between men and women. You want to change that tradition and it's meaning. That is different from asking for same sex couple to have the same legal rights as "married" men and women. People are free to love whom they please. I have stated time and time again in this thread that I have NO PROBLEM with that. They can have sex with each other till the cows turn blue and it doesn't bother me or make me feel uncomfortable in my life. I support that gay couples through "civil unions" should have the same legal benefits as "married couples" do. If you are upset that I don't want to change my definition of "marriage" as well, then that's your problem not mine.
My opinions must still be in the majority right now since most states still don't allow "gay marriage". Maybe one day they will when all of the older people have died off and the new brain washed youth have grown up and are able to vote in the new definition of marriage! :grin: Until then, I would accept "civil union" and my benefits if I was gay..just saying; and the optional: no homo.
The old "They have all the laws necessary to protect them against discrimination and crimes." line used for the last 100 years in America by bigots. The same BS was used prior the the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act...... hey, blacks didn't needed protection, they had seperate but equal!..... women don't need to own property or vote, that is what their husband is for!.... It is all the same BS, just to a different group. The funny thing is that in 20-30 years you won't own up to your position in 2013.
1960 "Well my opinions must still be in the majority since seperate but equal is still constitutional. Maybe one day when all the old folks have died off and the new brain washed youth have grown up and are able to vote in a new definition of equality! :grin: Until then, I would accept sperate but equal if I were a negro.. just saying; and the optional "
Another poster who can't bother to read everything to get the right information and is basing this false claim of an incorrect assumption about my views based on one literal sentence that means more when added to the whole context, and then adding false equivalences to it to further perpetuate a fake myth about my views. smh I guess since you all can't actually deal with my real views constructively, you have to invent views for me by incorrectly attributing a view based on taking a sentence out of total context. This is really a sad way to debate or make arguments, points, etc.
You just can't find an argument to make without standing on the backs of the African-American civil rights movement that resulted from hundreds of years of forced slavery and torture huh? You want everyone to see and believe that being homosexual is just like being African-American don't you?
Another common tactic used to make bigots feel better..... the group being discriminated against right now isn't like the groups discriminated against in the past.... the same nonsense your are spewing was spewed against the womans movement, latinos and yes african americans. Jews were systematically exterminated and enslaved in past history, going back thousands of years... so were a number of Asians...... Homosexuals have been marginalized for thousands of years, and have been systematically abused and killed. Do whatever you want, just know you are a bigot..... not the first, nor the last.... just feel nice and warm inside knowing you have a place at the table with folks that marginalized blacks, women, latinos, jews and other groups.
