Help Me Out: Where Are the Persecuted Gay People??

[charlie dark]

Then keep your capitalist social ideology to yourself if your whole thought process is centered around money,position, and power for it takes 'intellect' to solve questions posed by social 'issues', not ' ideological darwinism'.

I voice my opinion to whoever and whenever I so please...!!!

Let's try your way and see how that works.....

 

[ShortyCumStain]

so is same sex Marriage the chief complaint for the gay community??

It sure as hell seems that way b/c as far as I'm concerned, they have da same rights as everyone else do. Acceptance isn't a right.

 

[Charlemagne]

Legacy_Infinity, geechian, etc ... WHOEVER ... even if you are straight and understand it people school me:

Where are all these "Gay Victims"?​

Cause right now I am starting to think I am missing something... let's all agree:

comparing gay civil rights to the "black" civil rights movement is just PLAIN IGNORANT ....ain't no gay people hanging from trees ..no "gay" version of emmit till ...no "gay" slavery no "gay" jim crow no "gay" ghettos ...no "gay" NOTHING like that​

It is 2011 almost 50 YEARS AFTER the civil rights movement ...and a cop will get off scott free if they shoot my "African American" Ass ....for NO REASON... see oscar grant and sean bell ... too many to name ...

SO where are the GAY victims of police brutality??? The state isn't oppressing them..... So then who is OPPRESSING gay people???


Is there discrimination against gay people? Yes, of course this is america ... but there is discrimination against nudists, smokers, and muslims as well ... just to name a few ... so why is war hungry America so in love with Gay people .....and Dogs?

This is real hard for an idiot like me to understand fam please help

Listen, just understand that the fact that you are even asking the question in the manner in which you are asking it is indicative of the problem. Your post is analogous and reminiscent of white men standing up on The Donahue show angrily bemoaning affirmative action and how there is no need for it.

the fact is, there are plenty of everyday examples of gays being beat up (killed even - Matthew Shepard), fired from or not hired to jobs (how many of you would hire a 'tranny'?), not allowed to rent, etc.

the bottom line is,if you arent gay why does it matter to you how they refer to their movement..? They are about 10% of the population and will continue to agitate/promote the so called "gay agenda" until they can live, work, marry and do everything everyone else can do without being discriminated against.

 

[WhenTheGoingGetsTtuff]

I am all for gay marriage... more power to anyone who wants to get married ....they have a right to get married ... though I disagree with them adopting children because I think that the adopted child should have the opportunity to grow up in a traditional home ... and this is where it is going next...adoption...but I digress

so is same sex Marriage the chief complaint for the gay community??

No it's not. It's equality which is the chief complaint.

 

[WhenTheGoingGetsTtuff]

No. That is the avenue they are taking to usurp protestant and catholic religious doctrine. Since Man created the concept of God, they want man to accept the behavior so that in their minds God will too. That is why I say let not man judge by denying them the oportunity to marry and let God be the ultimate judge at their death. Same as everyone else.

And as for your point on gay adoption, they are already doing that and in my opinion there is an 80% chance that the child will become homosexual also since most if not all children are influenced by their caregiver. Just look at the explosion of moist men in our community since the influx of fatherless homes. Plus how could someone who claims that they were 'born' gay teach about heterosexual behavior. I have always said that if they chose a lifestyle where you cannot produce children then why do you want them? Maybe adopt children old enough not to be influenced by their lifestyle but able to make their own choice.

Very untrue sir. It's the opposite.

 

[WhenTheGoingGetsTtuff]

Didn't read the thread so I hope I'm not repeating

But you're missing a lot. Matthew Shepard was the "Gay" version of Emmitt Till (I find making these types of comparisons distasteful but for the sake of argument).


The thing about gays getting married is about equal treatment under the law. I don't see them wanting to get married in anyone's church that doesn't want them just the legal status of a marriage. While a civil union is said to be the same thing, if it's the same thing why not call it a "marriage"?

Bottomline: You gotta appease the holy rollers. The religious right. It's the systems way of compromising.

 

[Mo Pizorn]

Bottomline: You gotta appease the holy rollers. The religious right. It's the systems way of compromising.

That does not change the facts.
Do you define homosexuality as heterosexuality?
They are different.
Such is the basis for defining the union of two same sexes as that - a union. Homosexuality is not less than or greater than heterosexuality or vice-versa. They are different words that define different circumstances that are simply descriptive in nature.
Please tell me what would be wrong with a civil union if it carried the same weight as a marriage other than the name?

 

[WhenTheGoingGetsTtuff]

if they do, they can sue under the EEOC. that fight has already been won for them with the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

now, have you recently heard them making job and housing discrimination part of their movement lately???

Gay Federal Employees can't buy life insurance for their lovers.

But other than that? No there's been nothing recently. So you're saying it doesn't exist? You believe it doesn't exist?

 

[WhenTheGoingGetsTtuff]

You guys are blinded by your personal beliefs!!
It's got nothing to do with right or wrong morality or otherwise.
It's about power, influence and leverage.

If you have the above then you have a better chance of enforcing your wants and desires.

Jews have ample of the above and therefore are able to enforce their wishes, gays have a substantial amount and are able to enforece theirs..

Blacks on the other hand have rather less so spend their time moaning about other groups exercising their powers and influence.....

How are you gonna sit there and moan about a dude benching 120kg just because you can only bench 90kg...?
Get your fucking weight up and bench what you wanna bench!!!

I like this post.

 

[geechiedan]

In others words no proof.... now that is out of the way how about you address the other points I raised...

Damn you capin HARD

Why don't I see you in the "Black Empowerment" Threads googling and droppin wiki quotes tho geechie?

because you STILL haven't gone thru my history to see that...thats your problem not mine..

and whats your other point that shepard isn't like till...the fact still remains they killed a gay man..theyre defense is they didn't but the way they targeted him sure looks like it.

 

[geechiedan]

Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not the same. I don't know why there is this push to make them the same. They are not. Why should they be called the same when they are not? That is a lie. You want everyone to "pretend" or redefine the truth? Not happening.
I have said this before: I don't give a shit what anyone else does if it doesn't involve me.
Expand the rights of a civil union to be the same as that of a marriage and call it a fucking victory.
No.
Gays will not do that. They wan to insist that people view heterosexuality and homosexuality as the same while simultaneously lobbying for special rights. Again, not happening. If they proposed the "civil union act" and put it on the ballot, I would support it regardless of my personal feelings on the subject. That's not good enough. They want to dominate. That's why Prop 8 failed.As has been said, tolerance and acceptance are two different things. You can force tolerance but not acceptance and that's how t is and always will be. I know there are a lot of white folks that hate me when they see me and I don't give a fuck. I wouldn't file a lawsuit against gays for not letting a heterosexual in a gay rights group. Its stupid. Its like when they forced the boy scouts to let that girl in back in the day. Tolerance does not equal acceptance. I support tolerance for all people but if you want acceptance, you are on your own.

if they want to be married and recognized in the same way as heteros how is that a "special right"??

and that tolerance/acceptance rant is word for word a redneck 1954 sentiment.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

The same reason we don't call heterosexuality homosexuality - because one is two different sexes and the other is two of the same sex. They ARE different. It does not change their status as equal. Its a way to identify their sexuality. They ARE different, nonetheless.

Huh? So if civil unions aren't the same, why should gays have to settle for some secondary level? Shouldn't they, as Americans, fight for equal protection under the law?


I don't see the problem? This talk of domination is talk of scary ass niggas. Dominate how? How would gays being allowed to marry or adopt or whatever affect you day to day? Name it. Even with this Tracy Morgan shit, how did that affect one thing in your life unless TM is sending you some money somehow?
It seems some folks hate when the people equate the gay civil rights struggle to The Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s but a lot of you go out of your way to act like crackas did. Next you'll be talking about reverse discrimination, you're not far from crying that now.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I dunno I'm asking you lol



Matthew Shepard = Emmitt Till


Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan If you don't go on with that


Anyways you saying it is about marriage too... iight cool... just don't make any more crazy statements "for the sake of arguing" ... I almost went in on you for that nonsense...Matthew Shepard is the same as Emmitt Till

They crucified Shepard, literally tied him to a fence and left him to die, which he later did. This after they pistol whipped and tortured him. Witnesses testified that they killed him because he was gay, one of the men even tried to use that as a defense, saying Shepard came on to him and he panicked.
Go in all you want, if that isn't Emmett Till like, I don't know what is.

You got these people playin in your head for REAL... go do your research... see the "picnic" in the deep south... when they beat, hung "black" men up, burned them and cut off their genitals then posed in front of the body for a family picture.... LIVING DAY TO DAY IN THAT REALITY WAS LIFE OF A BLACK PERSON .... THAT WAS PERSECUTION....imo

Shoot ....Matthew Shepard wasn't even killed for being gay ....they wasn't even trying to kill him ...they tried to rob him cause he looked too feminine to fight back... the perpetrators were not convicted of a hate crime.... are you saying that fact was a CONSPIRACY??

There wasn't hate crime legislation at the time to convict them of. If you believe that shit about not trying to kill him, you want to believe it. It didn't ring even slightly true then and less now.
Don't be so arrogant to think you are the only one who knows about the heinous acts committed on Black folks in this country. The fact that I do know is how I know Matthew Shepard has become their Emmett Till icon.

Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not the same. I don't know why there is this push to make them the same. They are not. Why should they be called the same when they are not? That is a lie. You want everyone to "pretend" or redefine the truth? Not happening.
I have said this before: I don't give a shit what anyone else does if it doesn't involve me.
Expand the rights of a civil union to be the same as that of a marriage and call it a fucking victory.
No.
Gays will not do that. They wan to insist that people view heterosexuality and homosexuality as the same while simultaneously lobbying for special rights. Again, not happening. If they proposed the "civil union act" and put it on the ballot, I would support it regardless of my personal feelings on the subject. That's not good enough. They want to dominate. That's why Prop 8 failed.As has been said, tolerance and acceptance are two different things. You can force tolerance but not acceptance and that's how t is and always will be. I know there are a lot of white folks that hate me when they see me and I don't give a fuck. I wouldn't file a lawsuit against gays for not letting a heterosexual in a gay rights group. Its stupid. Its like when they forced the boy scouts to let that girl in back in the day. Tolerance does not equal acceptance. I support tolerance for all people but if you want acceptance, you are on your own.

You have no idea what Prop 8 is, do you? Google and come back with your argument better.

 

[Mo Pizorn]

Huh? So if civil unions aren't the same, why should gays have to settle for some secondary level? Shouldn't they, as Americans, fight for equal protection under the law?


I don't see the problem? This talk of domination is talk of scary ass niggas. Dominate how? How would gays being allowed to marry or adopt or whatever affect you day to day? Name it. Even with this Tracy Morgan shit, how did that affect one thing in your life unless TM is sending you some money somehow?
It seems some folks hate when the people equate the gay civil rights struggle to The Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s but a lot of you go out of your way to act like crackas did. Next you'll be talking about reverse discrimination, you're not far from crying that now.

Because its NOT secondary. Stop lying. I've noticed that you have a hard problem with honesty.
Your outrage is nonsensical.
As I stated, just as homo & hetero sexuality are two different sides of the same coin, why couldn't marriage and civil unions be the same? The whole "its going to be secondary" argument has no basis if the definitions of civil unions are expanded. The problem is that it takes away part of the "power" of being a special interest group. That is where the "domination" factor comes in. Gays want Jew status. Much in the same way that Jews are given special treatment because they were victimized and yet they wield a strong power throughout the world is the same goal that gays seem to have as a group. If it wasn't, then there wouldn't be so much outrage about being acknowledged as having the same rights but having the union being defined differently. Gays want to be able to apply for "gay grants", etc. - they want to be defined as a special group while at the same time wielding power. People see that and won't support it.
homosexuality = same sex sex
heterosexuality = opposite sex sex
So, if a heterosexual union is described as a marriage and a homosexual union is described as a civil union and they have THE SAME RIGHTS, then what is the problem? There is none. Gays want to redefine marriage and only that will be an accepted victory, which is why they get met with such resistance. As has been said, you can't legislate acceptance, only tolerance.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Because its NOT secondary. Stop lying. I've noticed that you have a hard problem with honesty.

You've noticed no such thing. I have a pretty extensive history. I may have been wrong but I know you will never find a post where I lied. Quote it. That's a direct challenge. Accept it or keep that shit in your face.

Your outrage is nonsensical.
As I stated, just as homo & hetero sexuality are two different sides of the same coin, why couldn't marriage and civil unions be the same? The whole "its going to be secondary" argument has no basis if the definitions of civil unions are expanded. The problem is that it takes away part of the "power" of being a special interest group. That is where the "domination" factor comes in. Gays want Jew status. Much in the same way that Jews are given special treatment because they were victimized and yet they wield a strong power throughout the world is the same goal that gays seem to have as a group. If it wasn't, then there wouldn't be so much outrage about being acknowledged as having the same rights but having the union being defined differently. Gays want to be able to apply for "gay grants", etc. - they want to be defined as a special group while at the same time wielding power. People see that and won't support it.
homosexuality = same sex sex
heterosexuality = opposite sex sex
So, if a heterosexual union is described as a marriage and a homosexul union is described as a civil union and they have THE SAME RIGHTS, then what is the problem? There is none. Gays want to redefine marriage and only that will be an accepted victory, which is why they get met with such resistance. As has been said, you can't legislate acceptance, only tolerance.

Then again, wouldn't expanding and recognizing civil unions as the same as marriage, wouldn't that be extending them "special rights"? If it's legally the same, why not just call it marriage?

 

[tuckdog]

Im still trying to find out.......What the fuck is Gay History....You mean to tell me California doesnt require students to learn Black History but they have to learn Gay History....

I have no problem with gay folks but they go overboard trying to force their sexual orientation on folks...

This.

 

[Mo Pizorn]

Then again, wouldn't expanding and recognizing civil unions as the same as marriage, wouldn't that be extending them "special rights"? If it's legally the same, why not just call it marriage?

Rather than hunt through your posts just for argument's sake, I'll just call you out the next time. I don't give a shit enough to do research.


And again, for the same reasons that we don't call heterosexuality homosexuality or vice-versa - that is reason enough unto itself not to call it the same word - because it is not exactly the same. It has been established that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. So be it. Heterosexuality is M/F. Homosexuality is M/M or F/F. Want a new word for your people? How about "same-sex union"?
There are a lot of hets who would support it. (myself included)
The problem is gays want it all and they want it now and that is why they keep being met with resistance. They want to redefine words and want people to pretend and at the same time want to wield the special interest card so they can claim victim and ask the government for grants, etc. because they know once they are acknowledged as a special interest group, they can ask for money.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Rather than hunt through your posts just for argument's sake, I'll just call you out the next time. I don't give a shit enough to do research.

That's what I thought would happen.

And again, for the same reasons that we don't call heterosexuality homosexuality or vice-versa - that is reason enough unto itself not to call it the same word - because it is not exactly the same. It has been established that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. So be it. Heterosexuality is M/F. Homosexuality is M/M or F/F. Want a new word for your people? How about "same-sex union"?
There are a lot of hets who would support it. (myself included)
The problem is gays want it all and they want it now and that is why they keep being met with resistance. They want to redefine words and want people to pretend and at the same time want to wield the special interest card so they can claim victim and ask the government for grants, etc. because they know once they are acknowledged as a special interest group, they can ask for money.

It's not legally established that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. In fact there are states right now trying to do that very thing.
So you're in favor, by your words, of extending special rights for gays? Noted. I'm against that. Just make everyone equal with equal protections.

 

[Mo Pizorn]

That's what I thought would happen.



It's not legally established that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. In fact there are states right now trying to do that very thing.
So you're in favor, by your words, of extending special rights for gays? Noted. I'm against that. Just make everyone equal with equal protections.

WRONG.
I am in favor of same-sex civil unions because everyone deserves the same basic rights with regards to being together. It doesn't affect me, so why should I try to stop it?
Extending special rights is a much broader concept altogether and is far more inclusive than unions.
So, you just lied and I just called you on it.
I knew it would be soon, just not that soon.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

WRONG.
I am in favor of same-sex civil unions.
Extending special rights is a much broader concept altogether and is far more inclusive than unions.
So, you just lied and I just called you on it.
I knew it would be soon, just not that soon.

Wow, and you talk about gays redefining words. You just make up shit just to do it.

You believe civil unions should be recognized the same as marriages, something that's not in effect in most places. That's extending special rights to gays. Recognizing gay marriage isn't as much of a leap and extends an already existing umbrella.

Did you ever find out what Prop 8 was?

 

[Mo Pizorn]

Wow, and you talk about gays redefining words. You just make up shit just to do it.

You believe civil unions should be recognized the same as marriages, something that's not in effect in most places. That's extending special rights to gays. Recognizing gay marriage isn't as much of a leap and extends an already existing umbrella.

Did you ever find out what Prop 8 was?

No, its not the same. Just as you seem to be having a majorly difficult time grasping the concept of specifics in general, your desire to simplify complex matters is indicative of lazy ass group think.
Do I have to spell everything out to you? Fuck it. Figure it out on your own...or not. I don't give a fuck. Neither you nor anyone else speaking on this matter has been able to refute what I have said.
Heterosexual = M/F
Homosexual = M/M or F/F
THEREFORE, if marriage is between men and women, why can't gays accept a same sex civil union that is comprised of the same rights but is different for definition's sake unless y'all have another agenda?
Fuck everything else. Answer that.

 

[geechiedan]

show where the legal definition of marriage is man and woman?

 

[BigDaddyBuk]

okay so lets flip it..we live in a world were you can't marry your woman or at least you can't call it marriage. And people look at you in disgust if you walk down the street holding her hand or decide to kiss her in public.

Do you think you should hide your affection for your woman just because it makes others uncomfortable? Do you think the status and title of your union should be different from the mainstream because others don't like it or are uncomfortable with it?

People like to call out the sexual aspect of gay life but they ignore the fact that heterosexuality is very open and public. A man and woman can express their affection for each other with no issue attached to it. I'm just looking at the issue from the other side and seeing how it could be restrictive if I had to deal with what they deal with.

i make it a point to not respond to hypothetical questions, as they do not offer real solutions to real problems. i deal with reality. i happen to be the type who doesnt want to see ANYONE engaged in public displays of affection. so MY RIGHT to not see that shit should be JUST AS RESPECTED as anyone trying to FORCE that shit on me. no one should "have the right" to behave in a lascivious manner in front of me OR MY KIDS.

You don't have a dog in this fight but lets say you have a son or daughter who are gay. And lets hope you love them. Would you want them to go through the persecution and suffering and possible legal nightmare that follows?

When it comes to marriage, i'm not for or against it honestly. I think it's a silly thing to fight for in this country. I don't believe in the caucasian christian beliefs of what marriage is. And neither do i believe that black people should either.

But i know they do.

But at the same time, if you're going to uphold a system and say the system is fair well............that's not fair. How do you regulate adult love? IN the military which is supposed to be in service of the people, if you were gay your benefits would not go to your lover.

Heck in some states in America you can't bequeath some things legally to your lover. In some hospitals here in Dallas when they say immediate family only in the ER? Your lover wouldn't be allowed entrance in their final moments.

again, i dont have a dog in that fight, and i dont have any sympathy for people in those situations. i do not find homosexuality to be legitimate in any way, shape, form, or fashion, and i wont apologize. the gay lifestyle is a choice, as are all the consequences. you MAY NOT be able to choose what you are attracted to, but you ABSOLUTELY CHOOSE HOW YOU LIVE. life IS NOT FAIR, and anyone expecting it to be is again, on a fool's errand. you fight to stop OPPRESSION, but you CANNOT WIN ACCEPTANCE.

Gay Federal Employees can't buy life insurance for their lovers.

But other than that? No there's been nothing recently. So you're saying it doesn't exist? You believe it doesn't exist?

you CAN buy health insurance for ANYONE, or life insurance making ANYONE the beneficiary, just not from EVERY company. find another company who will do what you want them to.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

No, its not the same. Just as you seem to be having a majorly difficult time grasping the concept of specifics in general, your desire to simplify complex matters is indicative of lazy ass group think.
Do I have to spell everything out to you? Fuck it. Figure it out on your own...or not. I don't give a fuck. Neither you nor anyone else speaking on this matter has been able to refute what I have said.
Heterosexual = M/F
Homosexual = M/M or F/F
THEREFORE, if marriage is between men and women, why can't gays accept a same sex civil union that is comprised of the same rights but is different for definition's sake unless y'all have another agenda?
Fuck everything else. Answer that.

You spit out elementary bio science like that's what's in dispute or even relevent.
Marriage is not defined legally as between one man and one woman in most jurisdictions so why should we make a whole new class for gays? Just use the one we have: two adults beyond a certain age.

show where the legal definition of marriage is man and woman?

He's still looking up Prop 8, so get in line

 

[geechiedan]

i make it a point to not respond to hypothetical questions, as they do not offer real solutions to real problems. i deal with reality. i happen to be the type who doesnt want to see ANYONE engaged in public displays of affection. so MY RIGHT to not see that shit should be JUST AS RESPECTED as anyone trying to FORCE that shit on me. no one should "have the right" to behave in a lascivious manner in front of me OR MY KIDS.

since when is holding hands and being affectionate lascivious??

no one is forcing anyone to do anything..when you see a man and woman kissing in public do you verbally let them know you disapprove? or shout a bible verse about fornication at them? How would you feel if you were told you can't "marry" your woman?

again, i dont have a dog in that fight, and i dont have any sympathy for people in those situations. i do not find homosexuality to be legitimate in any way, shape, form, or fashion, and i wont apologize. the gay lifestyle is a choice, as are all the consequences. you MAY NOT be able to choose what you are attracted to, but you ABSOLUTELY CHOOSE HOW YOU LIVE. life IS NOT FAIR, and anyone expecting it to be is again, on a fool's errand. you fight to stop OPPRESSION, but you CANNOT WIN ACCEPTANCE.

whether being gay is nature or nurture is an argument that will go in circles and is pointless the point is it exists. Other animals in nature who exhibit homosexual behavior aren't shunned by there group and it doesn't affect the group in terms of survival. That being the case why care if they want to call their union "marriage" or adopt children?

 

[Les W]

Listen, just understand that the fact that you are even asking the question in the manner in which you are asking it is indicative of the problem. Your post is analogous and reminiscent of white men standing up on The Donahue show angrily bemoaning affirmative action and how there is no need for it.

the fact is, there are plenty of everyday examples of gays being beat up (killed even - Matthew Shepard), fired from or not hired to jobs (how many of you would hire a 'tranny'?), not allowed to rent, etc.

the bottom line is,if you arent gay why does it matter to you how they refer to their movement..? They are about 10% of the population and will continue to agitate/promote the so called "gay agenda" until they can live, work, marry and do everything everyone else can do without being discriminated against.

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]

Sorry I think you missed the point and after reading through your post I am more confused than ever... I tried to make it very clear that this is me trying to understand the modern issues ... not a platform to insult or hate gay people ... but yet you still have a beef with how I am asking the question??
1. So you are saying... I shouldn't care to know about the gay movement because I am NOT gay..... so why do YOU know about their movement?
see how irrational you are?

2. You keep comparing the "gay struggle" with the "black struggle" ... no I am not into crying victim...but the only thing I see that those two things have in common is the word "struggle" ... fiirst jews compared the holocaust to slavery now this??? Gotta be ignorance imo

Are gay people owed reparations?? Do we need to build a memorial to any gay heroes who bravely? Where is the systematic discrimination?

HELP ME OUT... show me... yall crying about it but I don't see nothing except Matthew Shepard ... in 300 Years of America all you got is Matthew Shepard and some high school bullies?

How are you gonna sit there and moan about a dude benching 120kg just because you can only bench 90kg...?
Get your fucking weight up and bench what you wanna bench!!!

no moan... just a simple question....I'm for gay equal rights just not for them trying to hit me with the jedi mind trick... and FYI if there were no gay white people we wouldn't even be having this discussion cause they would have labeled it a "black disease" ... and damned the whole lot of you to hell

Its not hard. It doesn't really exist. As has been said, the goal is validation and domination, with the ability to label you a homophobe if you don't go along with everything exactly as they want it.
And as you pointed out about dogs - you can best damn bet that beastiality will be down the road somewhere.

If you said this 10 years ago I would have laughed in your face... today that's a diff topic tho

No it's not. It's equality which is the chief complaint.

Oh really? ...interesting.... quick question for you then.... tell me who is equal to the white anglo-saxton male in America? When did equality become the NORM for America???

 

[Les W]

This is only PART of what the black struggle was about:




Yall need to learn your history... I read the books, been to the Slave Museums, seen the underground railroad... this is REAL ain't no joke... slaves would have been LUCKY to be treated like gays and dogs get treated today

 

[BigDaddyBuk]

since when is holding hands and being affectionate lascivious??

no one is forcing anyone to do anything..when you see a man and woman kissing in public do you verbally let them know you disapprove? or shout a bible verse about fornication at them? How would you feel if you were told you can't "marry" your woman?

is a gay person's quality of life lessened because they can't kiss or hold hands in public without getting frowned upon? seriously? just do it and take the frowns, but shut the fuck up about it. they need to stop being pissy little bitches about being FROWNED UPON, which again IS NOT OPPRESSION...and man, butch or whatever they UP and move along.

nobody told me i couldnt marry my woman. why do you keep saying this as if you have come up with some GREAT point? i do not find the argument legitimate because i do not believe in the legitimacy of homosexual behavior.

whether being gay is nature or nurture is an argument that will go in circles and is pointless the point is it exists. Other animals in nature who exhibit homosexual behavior aren't shunned by there group and it doesn't affect the group in terms of survival. That being the case why care if they want to call their union "marriage" or adopt children?

i DONT care what they call it! i dont give a fuck! i dont care one way or the other, but i DO know it ISNT about equality, its about ACCEPTANCE.

 

[WhenTheGoingGetsTtuff]

i make it a point to not respond to hypothetical questions, as they do not offer real solutions to real problems. i deal with reality. i happen to be the type who doesnt want to see ANYONE engaged in public displays of affection. so MY RIGHT to not see that shit should be JUST AS RESPECTED as anyone trying to FORCE that shit on me. no one should "have the right" to behave in a lascivious manner in front of me OR MY KIDS.



again, i dont have a dog in that fight, and i dont have any sympathy for people in those situations. i do not find homosexuality to be legitimate in any way, shape, form, or fashion, and i wont apologize. the gay lifestyle is a choice, as are all the consequences. you MAY NOT be able to choose what you are attracted to, but you ABSOLUTELY CHOOSE HOW YOU LIVE. life IS NOT FAIR, and anyone expecting it to be is again, on a fool's errand. you fight to stop OPPRESSION, but you CANNOT WIN ACCEPTANCE.


you CAN buy health insurance for ANYONE, or life insurance making ANYONE the beneficiary, just not from EVERY company. find another company who will do what you want them to.

Why do they have to do that? You get it from this place and can put your wife as a beneficiary. So should the gay person be allowed to as well. That's what they want.

 

[WhenTheGoingGetsTtuff]

Oh really? ...interesting.... quick question for you then.... tell me who is equal to the white anglo-saxton male in America? When did equality become the NORM for America???

I'm seeing now, no matter how many times people answer you. Give you answers. Explanations. Your rebuke is, "you don't get it". I'm thinking Mr. Les you actually don't get it. You don't want to get it. You're doing what is akin to asking what 1 + 1 is. And we keep saying 2. And you saying no it's not, and you all don't get it.

You simply just do not WANT to know. Which is fine.

 

[osirianprncpl]

What's to stop them? If they choose to not allow a person a membership, they wouldn't tell you why, they'd just deny you like a job.
And that's not the same thing. A church doesn't have to perform a marriage ceremony for anybody they don't want to, straight or gay.

You know what...After my last post I had a revelation. Its not about religious doctrine at all. What may be in question is getting a constitutional amendment to include 'sexual orientation' to the, I believe, 13th amendment. They maybe using the 'gay marriage' platform to achieve this, since that is the one sexual deviation broadly excepted within society today. Just like the ban on smoking. It started with restraunts, then it went to civic buildings inside and out, then it went to inside a car when children are present, then to outside period. The same maybe true for the same sex issue.

If the constitution was amended to include sexual orientation, then bestiality, s&m, swinging, and especially 'child sexual exploitation', and here is where the elite have a major issue with child trafficking, man/boy love, and underage marriage. All of these if the constitution were amended could fall under a sexual orientation clause, and would also explain why they are trying so hard to tie their issue with the Black civil rights movement, for it was our blood and tears which brought forth the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.

Damn I hope I am wrong.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

[Yall need to learn your history... I read the books, been to the Slave Museums, seen the underground railroad... this is REAL ain't no joke... slaves would have been LUCKY to be treated like gays and dogs get treated today

You're arrogance is amazing. We know our history, thank you. I doubt you're the only one who's been to a those historical sites.
No one is comparing gays to slaves so let that go. The only people who get compared to slaves are pro athletes, convicts, and White people now that we have a Black President.

is a gay person's quality of life lessened because they can't kiss or hold hands in public without getting frowned upon? seriously? just do it and take the frowns, but shut the fuck up about it. they need to stop being pissy little bitches about being FROWNED UPON, which again IS NOT OPPRESSION...and man, butch or whatever they UP and move along.

.

Yes, it is. I couldn't imagine walking around with my wife holding hands or other reasonable displays of affection and getting shit from strangers. So, yeah, that would fuck with my quality of life. Yours too if you think about.
But like gays do, I'd get over it and deal with it. There is no law that will ever do anything about that. But they can get laws to make people stop discrimination against them.

You know what...After my last post I had a revelation. Its not about religious doctrine at all. What may be in question is getting a constitutional amendment to include 'sexual orientation' to the, I believe, 13th amendment. They maybe using the 'gay marriage' platform to achieve this, since that is the one sexual deviation broadly excepted within society today. Just like the ban on smoking. It started with restraunts, then it went to civic buildings inside and out, then it went to inside a car when children are present, then to outside period. The same maybe true for the same sex issue.

If the constitution was amended to include sexual orientation, then bestiality, s&m, swinging, and especially 'child sexual exploitation', and here is where the elite have a major issue with child trafficking, man/boy love, and underage marriage. All of these if the constitution were amended could fall under a sexual orientation clause, and would also explain why they are trying so hard to tie their issue with the Black civil rights movement, for it was our blood and tears which brought forth the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.

Damn I hope I am wrong.

You are. That was total horseshit.
There is no equating consensual adult behavior with attacking animals or children (S&M participants and swingers aren't a "group" that would need protection).

 

[Deacs]

the comments in this thread are so rich one could catch diabetes

What I hate about my country are the simple things, the notion of freedom and its vague description as to who it meant over this country's formation and the need to dictate these said freedoms to whatever set of people at this time rather than see all as equals.

It shouldn't be the case as to who is able to gain the privilege to do whatever, simply able to enjoy privileges as citizens.... I am indifferent to them because being gay doesn't alter their ability to be part of the community... your emotional and religious attachments do. Hell have of you love gay porn on this site and continuously post them... simply say you don't want to see dudes dicking down dudes because the image of dude sex is disgusting to straight men...

Have they been persecuted to the level of of the american african? No, but they have been persecuted. Everyone in nyc should know 'the village' which was a red light district way back in the days, which you could really call their interment camp due to the fact they were persecuted by those in their community to leave for that area... then fucked up by roving bands of haters with no persecution. For the most part, its a cultural thing of many societies before they vet it here with this mix match of secular religious culture we have.

Does it still happen now? I could only attest for my experience. I had a diaper buddy who was part of my group of 18 dudes from the block (linden blvd rolled deep like that) where we broke bread in each other's homes... you know a brotherhood. We truthfully went to war for each other and our small section of concrete... got older, left nyc, returned 7 years later... not only were they missing brothers to the streets, they banished one from the block after beating him to an inch of his life... because he was gay and not accepted... I had to find out from his mouth since no one talked about him and had to track him through his moms, who as well looked at her son in disgust...

They are doing no different than any other group in this country which gets documented rights of man litigated for them...

 

[osirianprncpl]

You are. That was total horseshit.
There is no equating consensual adult behavior with attacking animals or children (S&M participants and swingers aren't a "group" that would need protection).

I am not thinking from emotional dictates of what is considered 'moral' behavior, I am thinking from what the 'rule of law' dictates and since child sex rings are a big thing among the unseen elite, it becomes a grand possibility that they are putting their money, and ideology behind the same sex issue for this purpose. For in some countries this 'sexual behavior' is not seen as illegal nor immoral and since american elites are a big part of that 'lifestyle' who is to say that many in the american publis are not being goaded into getting that wording added to the constitution to be litigated on their behalf in the future.

You do know that the bush family was accused of this at one time.

http://www.voxfux.com/features/bush_child_sex_coverup/franklin.htm

P.S not trying to take this thread topic in a different direction, simply proposing a theory on why the gay agenda is so predominate in the media today.

 

[mailboxpimp]

No it's not. It's equality which is the chief complaint.

a gay couple can never have equality because there is on equality / balance in a GAY relationship........ 2 dick sucka's or 2 pussy lickers cant reproduce.... faggz & dykes dont contribute any thing positive to society nor do they contribute to the continuation of society..... no off spring.... marriage should be illegal... adopting children should be illegal....fagotry should be illegal...