Well, of course when you do a targeted search for the most abominable nonsense you can find to support your flimsy accusations, you will find it. I could find pretty much anything.
It means nothing that you managed to find a few fringe things.
You might want to do a little research. The National Organization for Marriage, formed only in 2007 to fight for Proposition 8, has only a few donors, and has also gone into bankruptcy. So, yeah....not a lot of power there, like the millions opposing them.
You are going to have to cite your source for that Noose photo. Not finding that. You can't just post unattributed photos. Probably some fringe guy, just like the crazy stuff on the other side.
it didn't which is why it is a false claim.Not when it is true. It has happened.
racists and bigots have grouped minorities together with criminals and drug abusers and sex offenders for generations. it is a sick and shameful practice to promote fear and hateNo, no, no.
You ARE what you do. You decide, unless someone has a gun to your head.
How to make a Tinfoiil HatPeople are doing whatever they want, just as they always have, aren't they? We've even enshrined it as acceptable in our laws today. What more do you want?
The cases show us that this isn't enough. It's about wiping out opposition and disparate views, not gaining any sorts of rights.
that's different. Gays deserve to be beat upHave you ever been afraid of being beat up for letting it be known that you are heterosexual?
All right. You are not engaging in good faith with your silly little ad hominem attacks. You are outside of the rules for this forum as well.
Because it fails to demonstrate that same-sex "marriage" is in any way linked to justice.why? ( i mean aside from the fact you don't like what it says.)
I am not wrong, because it is not equivalent to Jim Crow. It is not equivalent because you cannot hide your skin color. Gays had the option of hiding, blacks did not. Hence you can fill in the blank for "____ while black" and the risk to personal safety while doing whatever that is increases. In the days of Jim Crow when racism and racial violence were more openly tolerated, and when this was combined with organized squelching of educational and economic opportunity which compounded the risk further, then yes it was a lot worse for blacks.and you are wrong here.
for generations gays have only been able to do these things by hiding.
At least they had a chance to get in the door. Skin color cannot be easily hidden, so during the Jim Crow years, a lot of blacks couldn't even get that. Not to minimize the obvious trauma of getting fired for your orientation after being there a couple of years before someone's "gaydar" finally went off, but that's a couple of years worth of money and experience that a lot of black people weren't able to get from the outset.And in many, if not most, cases that changed dramatically when they came out or were discovered.
it's marriage not "marriage"Because it fails to demonstrate that same-sex "marriage" is in any way linked to justice.
I am not wrong, because it is not equivalent to Jim Crow. It is not equivalent because you cannot hide your skin color. Gays had the option of hiding, blacks did not. Hence you can fill in the blank for "____ while black" and the risk to personal safety while doing whatever that is increases.
[/QUOTE]it's marriage not "marriage"
Following your argument through to the end - Jews in Nazi occupied Europe had the option of hiding, many did hide. Because Jews could hide are you saying that made them safe?
those aside your argument fails for a more obvious reason. Blacks of the segregation era did not have to hide. They had safe places within black communities and with families. Blacks weren't in danger of their families turning against them. Homosexuals did not have this safe zone option, hiding began with hiding from your own family and spilled over into all aspects of life. You had to hide at work and hide in your neighborhood your social life. and if your cover was blown in one area it was blown in all
calling a horse a duck won't give it feathersTo the biblical adherent believer - and to Jesus, who defined marriage Himself as "when a man leaves his father and mother and clings unto his wife and the two shall be one flesh" - it is decidedly not and cannot be marriage. It should have been designated something else.
try reading before you make foolish proclamations.Jews were rounded up, placed in ghettos, taken to concentration camps, and gassed. No one is doing this or has ever done this to people who have sex with the same gender. No one even knows unless they make a big deal about it. Stupid and inapplicable comparison.
and I'm still waiting for evidence that sexual orientation is somehow a choice. (its going to be a long wait i know)You are still going on as if it is an innate (wrong) and immediately identifiable thing like skin color, and sexual behavior is simply not.
Still waiting on all those sources from which you lifted photos and texts in earlier responses. Silence. Don't plagiarize. Name your sources.
No one is doing this or has ever done this to people who have sex with the same gender.
No argument there. I did not advocate harsh treatment nor do I think it should have ever happened, of course. It is still wrong, but there are right and wrong ways to handle things...again, as Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians.The Bible orders that homosexuals be put to death. In some societies like medieval Europe homosexuals were routinely burned at the stake. The bundles of sticks that were placed around the feet of the victim were called "faggots" hence the derogatory term for them today. They are not routinely murdered any more but there are still isolated instances like that of Matthew Shepard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard. Some Christian churches in Africa have successfully advocated draconian laws against homosexuals. While societal norms are slowly changing, homosexuals still face a very great deal of both covert and overt persecution. We do well to remember that they are people just like you and I who do not deserve the hatred and persecution that they still face --- now, here.
Wrong. Marriage is God-ordained and defined as one man, one woman, for life (Matt 19:4-9).it's marriage not "marriage"
Not the majority, unlike with gays.Some blacks could hide, it was called passing.
You misunderstand my argument. My argument is that blacks under Jim Crow were worse off than gays were 20 years ago, and therefore that refusing to cater to a gay commitment ceremony is not equivalent to Jim Crow.Following your argument through to the end - Jews in Nazi occupied Europe had the option of hiding, many did hide. Because Jews could hide are you saying that made them safe?[
Blacks weren't even safe in their own homes and neighborhoods at times. Not when the KKK and lynch mobs came to their doors.those aside your argument fails for a more obvious reason. Blacks of the segregation era did not have to hide. They had safe places within black communities and with families. Blacks weren't in danger of their families turning against them. Homosexuals did not have this safe zone option, hiding began with hiding from your own family and spilled over into all aspects of life. You had to hide at work and hide in your neighborhood your social life. and if your cover was blown in one area it was blown in all
Well...only as long as you don't use the Bible to support that, because that's not what's in it. In fact there's about 7+ types of marriage in there.Wrong. Marriage is God-ordained and defined as one man, one woman, for life (Matt 19:4-9). (snip)
I know "One man. one woman, for life" sounds nice but it's not actually what the Bible teaches.Deut. 24: 1-4 said:When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Because it fails to demonstrate that same-sex "marriage" is in any way linked to justice.
I am not wrong, because it is not equivalent to Jim Crow. It is not equivalent because you cannot hide your skin color. Gays had the option of hiding, blacks did not. Hence you can fill in the blank for "____ while black" and the risk to personal safety while doing whatever that is increases. In the days of Jim Crow when racism and racial violence were more openly tolerated, and when this was combined with organized squelching of educational and economic opportunity which compounded the risk further, then yes it was a lot worse for blacks.
At least they had a chance to get in the door. Skin color cannot be easily hidden, so during the Jim Crow years, a lot of blacks couldn't even get that. Not to minimize the obvious trauma of getting fired for your orientation after being there a couple of years before someone's "gaydar" finally went off, but that's a couple of years worth of money and experience that a lot of black people weren't able to get from the outset.
that is one of the eight biblical definitions.Wrong. Marriage is God-ordained and defined as one man, one woman, for life (Matt 19:4-9).
Of course the African American's who could pass didn't have risks to their personal safety...right?Not the majority, unlike with gays.
20 years?You misunderstand my argument. My argument is that blacks under Jim Crow were worse off than gays were 20 years ago, and therefore that refusing to cater to a gay commitment ceremony is not equivalent to Jim Crow.
Neither were homosexuals always safe in their own homesBlacks weren't even safe in their own homes and neighborhoods at times. Not when the KKK and lynch mobs came to their doors.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?