Gay Pride

• Bio-Hazzzzard

  

  isadore;422547 wrote: Wow! “Time to stay low,”
  
  People like you telling them to stay low and wait their time.

  I am the person who made that comment isadore, majorspark was only giving an opinionated interpretation of my previous post.
  
  So your telling me that if you get a new job you are going to tell your new employer the way you think it should be your first day at that job? Perhaps it would be better to gain trust of that employer to where he/she feels comfortable with your opinion. You wouldn't work for me very long if you immediately told me your way was better than the way I had known for years.
  
  The same goes with the gay issue. If the community is scared of it wouldn't it make things worse for a person if they would lash out at them claiming that the community needs to change what they think as soon as they move into that area?
• isadore

  Manhattan Buckeye;422594 wrote:What the heck was that?
  
  20 years ago, without colonies and the king, the idea of gay marriage was an impossible idea, even among the most socially liberal of states.

  
  yes but 20 years ago gay people were being oppressed and denied basic rights in America.
• isadore

  Bio-Hazzzzard;422621 wrote:I am the person who made that comment isadore, majorspark was only giving an opinionated interpretation of my previous post.
  
  So your telling me that if you get a new job you are going to tell your new employer the way you think it should be your first day at that job? Perhaps it would be better to gain trust of that employer to where he/she feels comfortable with your opinion. You wouldn't work for me very long if you immediately told me your way was better than the way I had known for years.
  
  The same goes with the gay issue. If the community is scared of it wouldn't it make things worse for a person if they would lash out at them claiming that the community needs to change what they think as soon as they move into that area?

  Gays have lived in America since colonial times. They are not a new phenomenon. In this nation, in this state and in almost any community. And they have over all these years suffered oppression. You are the kind of guy who would always be telling the oppressed what ever group just to wait and accept. A thousand years from now we might give you the right to be yourself with being persecuted for it.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  isadore;422627 wrote:yes but 20 years ago gay people were being oppressed and denied basic rights in America.

  
  Again, that is your opinion and an extreme minority opinion. Getting married isn't a basic right, or else D&D masters everywhere would stake their claim to marriage. That isn't oppression compared to oppression other groups have suffered.
• isadore

  Manhattan Buckeye;422656 wrote:Again, that is your opinion and an extreme minority opinion. Getting married isn't a basic right, or else D&D masters everywhere would stake their claim to marriage. That isn't oppression compared to oppression other groups have suffered.

  
  Loving v Virginia 1967 United States Supreme Court decision ending laws against mixed marriage, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," And denial of the right of marriage is one of a long list of oppression gays have suffered over the years.
• Bio-Hazzzzard

  

  isadore;422634 wrote:Gays have lived in America since colonial times. They are not a new phenomenon. In this nation, in this state and in almost any community. And they have over all these years suffered oppression. You are the kind of guy who would always be telling the oppressed what ever group just to wait and accept. A thousand years from now we might give you the right to be yourself with being persecuted for it.

  You don't have a clue what type of guy I am. I believe that homosexuality is wrong, however, they are human beings and should be accepted in society for who they are regardless of my beliefs. With that said, why should I be forced to believe homosexuality is right, on the other hand why should I force my beliefs on gays?
  
  Perspectively thinking, there will always be a clash between opposing sides, and I don't think that everyone of both sides will ever come to a conclusion that they have to be forced to believe in their opposer.
  
  Persecution is a strong word in todays time, use it wisely.
• isadore

  "stay low" is a suggestion that pushed gays back in the closet and blacks back into jim crow. Two things that are very much apart of our recent history.
  Two examples of blatant oppression. Two thing that have an obvious right and wrong side to them. You can be on the side of the victim or the oppresser. I choose the victim. And you?
• Bio-Hazzzzard

  

  isadore;422697 wrote:"stay low" is a suggestion that pushed gays back in the closet and blacks back into jim crow. Two things that are very much apart of our recent history.
  Two examples of blatant oppression. Two thing that have an obvious right and wrong side to them. You can be on the side of the victim or the oppresser. I choose the victim. And you?

  Victims?? Did you ever hear of the white college fund or heterosexual pride parades?
  
  Oppression is on the side of your victims.
• isadore

  Bio-Hazzzzard;422711 wrote:Victims?? Did you ever hear of the white college fund or heterosexual pride parades?
  
  Oppression is on the side of your victims.

  That’s oppression, lol, Denial of basic rights is oppression, not that. But if you are feeling persecuted:
  The negro college fund is a fund to support traditionally negro colleges, The colleges that were established because white colleges in states would not accept blacks. Anyone who contributed to those colleges were contributing to white college funds. Blacks were contributing to state universities that refused them through their taxes. Which was true of most northern state and private universities in the 19th century allowed no blacks. Most southern universities state and private continued that well into the later half of the 20th century.
  The negro colleges were open to whites if they wished to attend. Presently if you contribute to the negro college fund, it goes to scholarships for blacks or whites attending these traditional (because of de jure segregation) black universities that continue to allow whites to attend.
  Gay pride marches are in the same category at St Patricks Day, Columbus Day, Puerto Rican Day marches. A chance by a minority to celebrate, to show its pride in its members and allow everyone to celebrate if they wish.
• Bio-Hazzzzard

  

  isadore;422774 wrote:That’s oppression, lol, Denial of basic rights is oppression, not that. But if you are feeling persecuted:
  The negro college fund is a fund to support traditionally negro colleges, The colleges that were established because white colleges in states would not accept blacks. Anyone who contributed to those colleges were contributing to white college funds. Blacks were contributing to state universities that refused them through their taxes. Which was true of most northern state and private universities in the 19th century allowed no blacks. Most southern universities state and private continued that well into the later half of the 20th century.
  The negro colleges were open to whites if they wished to attend. Presently if you contribute to the negro college fund, it goes to scholarships for blacks or whites attending these traditional (because of de jure segregation) black universities that continue to allow whites to attend.
  Gay pride marches are in the same category at St Patricks Day, Columbus Day, Puerto Rican Day marches. A chance by a minority to celebrate, to show its pride in its members and allow everyone to celebrate if they wish.

  So what would the minorities feel if we replaced the word negro with the word white in the title of college fund.... I smell a riot. What if there were all white colleges in this present day and we allowed negros in because of de jure segregation...once again I smell a riot.
  
  The gays are accepted in the present day unlike they were in the past, so what is your argument? From the begining of time until now minority groups have won through the years, don't you think so?
• isadore

  well bio, whatever rights minority groups won, they did not win by staying low. they won by challenging the status quo. the ban on gay marriage is part of the status quo. it is denying a basic human right to consenting adult same sex couples.
• Bio-Hazzzzard

  

  isadore;422917 wrote:well bio, whatever rights minority groups won, they did not win by staying low. they won by challenging the status quo. the ban on gay marriage is part of the status quo. it is denying a basic human right to consenting adult same sex couples.

  If faced with battle, a smart person would take time to stategize his every move (aka staying low) and surface with a game plan of how to properly approach the opponent. If you don't believe in a strategic line of offense and take the time to lay low to plan the best move, you will lose every time my friend. Harriet Tubman didn't lay low for a while??....come on isadore.
  
  I don't think minorities used your way of thinking to get to where their at today.
• isadore

  Bio-Hazzzzard;422963 wrote:If faced with battle, a smart person would take time to stategize his every move (aka staying low) and surface with a game plan of how to properly approach the opponent. If you don't believe in a strategic line of offense and take the time to lay low to plan the best move, you will lose every time my friend. Harriet Tubman didn't lay low for a while??....come on isadore.
  
  I don't think minorities used your way of thinking to get to where their at today.

  you think rosa parks was laying low when she refused to go to the back of the bus or the brown family was laying low when they refused to send their little girl to a segregated school, or the freedom riders, or the voting rights demonstraters at the pettus bridge in selma.
• Bio-Hazzzzard

  

  isadore;422998 wrote:you think rosa parks was laying low when she refused to go to the back of the bus or the brown family was laying low when they refused to send their little girl to a segregated school, or the freedom riders, or the voting rights demonstraters at the pettus bridge in selma.

  Do you think these people had a wild hair up their ass and decided to do this at the spur of the moment?
  
  I wasn't their and neither were you, my guess is they had a plan before they moved in.
• isadore

  they went out, put their well being, their lives on the line. my point in our discussion has been they did not accept oppression. gays today are fighting through the courts, protesting in the streets fighting against the denial of a basic human right.
• Bio-Hazzzzard

  

  isadore;423029 wrote:they went out, put their well being, their lives on the line. my point in our discussion has been they did not accept oppression. gays today are fighting through the courts, protesting in the streets fighting against the denial of a basic human right.

  
  What is your definition of human rights. Be specific.
• isadore

  Bio-Hazzzzard;423073 wrote:What is your definition of human rights. Be specific.

  
  rights and freedom to which all humans are entitled. Specifically, one of these would be the right to marry between two consenting adults.
• majorspark

  

  isadore;423098 wrote:one of these would be the right to marry between two consenting adults.

  Why just two consenting adults? Why not one male and two females? Evan the Oprah had adult women in plural "marriages" on her program that felt their right to equal rights of marriage were denied. Should we continue to deny them their equal rights?
  
  http://www.oprah.com/relationships/Polygamy-in-America/7
• isadore

  majorspark;423110 wrote:Why just two consenting adults? Why not one male and two females? Evan the Oprah had adult women in plural "marriages" on her program that felt their right to equal rights of marriage were denied. Should we continue to deny them their equal rights?
  
  http://www.oprah.com/relationships/Polygamy-in-America/7

  
  got no problem with it.
• Bio-Hazzzzard

  

  isadore;423098 wrote:rights and freedom to which all humans are entitled. Specifically, one of these would be the right to marry between two consenting adults.

  That is the fine line I'm talking about. You are battling a predominately christian nation that will accept people for who they are, however their beliefs will be unchanged as will yours.
  
  It will be very hard to convince them that you are right and they are wrong and for us to convince you that we are right and you are wrong.
• majorspark

  

  isadore;423118 wrote:got no problem with it.

  
  Now I am curious. What is your definition of marriage? At some point your moral compass has to kick in. 1st and 2nd cousins? Brother and sister?
• isadore

  Bio-Hazzzzard;423132 wrote:That is the fine line I'm talking about. You are battling a predominately christian nation that will accept people for who they are, however their beliefs will be unchanged as will yours.
  
  It will be very hard to convince them that you are right and they are wrong and for us to convince you that we are right and you are wrong.

  Igays not denying them basic right. They are being denied their rights. No one is forcing Christian churches to carry out marriages they disapprove. Civil marriage is a right that consenting adults should be given.
• isadore

  majorspark;423135 wrote:Now I am curious. What is your definition of marriage? At some point your moral compass has to kick in. 1st and 2nd cousins? Brother and sister?

  
  genetic problems harming innocent children
• Bio-Hazzzzard

  

  isadore;423139 wrote:Igays not denying them basic right. They are being denied their rights. No one is forcing Christian churches to carry out marriages they disapprove. Civil marriage is a right that consenting adults should be given.

  
  I am talking about a christian nation OF VOTERS and not the church.
• majorspark

  

  isadore;423140 wrote:genetic problems harming innocent children

  
  Couples with a higher propensity to pass on a genetic defect are not limited to just those that are close genetic relatives. So should the government test all candidates for marriage to see if they carry potential genetic abnormalities that they could carry on to their children? And if they their is a high potential for genetic defect should we forbid them to marry?
  
  And what if those that are close genetic relatives did not want children? Say one spouse were sterile? Or they wished to adopt? Where does you moral compass point in these cases?