Much Props to Michael Irvin for standing up for marriage equality

[denni5themenace]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

I don't understand what the gif is for, so African Americans shouldn't support other struggles for equality?

In the grand scheme of things of course African-Americans support equality and the struggles of other groups, not just for what WE endured and still endure to this day but just in general.  As of now marriage as we know it now is defined as the union of a man and woman in a religious ceremony.  With that being said a homosexual couple doesn't really fit into the equation for different reasons.  As far as equality goes, homosexual couples just can't do the same things that a heterosexual couple can do, that's just the way it is so that should tell you something. 


No, it's not. 

 

[realrubirosa]

Human rights on the other hand (IE: all races being viewed as equal) as I stressed repeatedly in the previous section, is one that is given to you just for being born human, regardless of how a "society" views it, or if a society even exists.

Are gays not humans?

If marriage is simply some sort of frivolous societal right--sort of like formal education, right to vote, eating at certain restaurants, drinking from certain water fountains, and virtually every single of the things that the famous civil rights movement was fighting for--then your logic leads us to think that either a) we should let them get married or b) we should not have cared to give blacks any of the rights that were fought so hard for.

Let me try to preempt an argument you may come back with--that the civil rights was more a fight for equality rather than for frivolous societal privileges. If we look at it that way, then why should gays not get ALL of the same equalities? So they can drink from community fountains, eat at restaurants, vote, but we can't give them marriage? Why not? Are they some sort of sub-human creature? Are they less of a human? How much less? 2/5 less than a full human? I think you're seeing what I'm getting at.

Like I said in my first reply, the only thing I'm seeing is people trying to belittle gays and say that their rights aren't as important as another minority's rights. Or that the right they want doesn't count because of the element of their being that makes them a minority... essentially just saying they can't have it because they're different.

You all do realize that by saying somebody should not get a certain right simply because they are homosexual is extremely similar to saying the same thing about another person simply because they are different in race, religion, color, creed, etc., right? It all boils down to social intolerance.

 

[realrubirosa]

Human rights on the other hand (IE: all races being viewed as equal) as I stressed repeatedly in the previous section, is one that is given to you just for being born human, regardless of how a "society" views it, or if a society even exists.

Are gays not humans?

If marriage is simply some sort of frivolous societal right--sort of like formal education, right to vote, eating at certain restaurants, drinking from certain water fountains, and virtually every single of the things that the famous civil rights movement was fighting for--then your logic leads us to think that either a) we should let them get married or b) we should not have cared to give blacks any of the rights that were fought so hard for.

Let me try to preempt an argument you may come back with--that the civil rights was more a fight for equality rather than for frivolous societal privileges. If we look at it that way, then why should gays not get ALL of the same equalities? So they can drink from community fountains, eat at restaurants, vote, but we can't give them marriage? Why not? Are they some sort of sub-human creature? Are they less of a human? How much less? 2/5 less than a full human? I think you're seeing what I'm getting at.

Like I said in my first reply, the only thing I'm seeing is people trying to belittle gays and say that their rights aren't as important as another minority's rights. Or that the right they want doesn't count because of the element of their being that makes them a minority... essentially just saying they can't have it because they're different.

You all do realize that by saying somebody should not get a certain right simply because they are homosexual is extremely similar to saying the same thing about another person simply because they are different in race, religion, color, creed, etc., right? It all boils down to social intolerance.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

If they do want to do things as heterosexual couples do, what of it? I would hope gay couples don't want to do marriage exactly like straight couples because more than half of marriages--straight marriages--end in divorce.

Then what about the other half of straight couples that actually stay married.  Don't just look at the negative or the bad sides of things, in this example the divorce rate among straight couples, make sure you look at the positives as well.  There are going to be negatives in any aspect of life, but don't use the negatives from a situation to try and draw light onto other subject in an attempt to try and make it seem better. 

Many gay people are ok with raising an adopted child together with their partner. Some who do want a child that is a part of their DNA use surrogates.
That's because those are the only options they have champ.  It's either adopt, have a surrogate partner, or watch the early stages of parenthood from the sidelines as heterosexual couples reproduce since homosexual couples can't. 

There is clearly no way to combine the genes of 2 males or 2 females but NEVER say never in science. In the future this may be a possibility
Well as of now, meaning right now 2 males or 2 females can't combine genes.  That's just the way it is. 

Dude is assuming because gays want to marry, this somehow means they desire to produce children the way that homosexuals do
No assumption involved champ, just ask around as I did and you will see that some homosexual couples would love to be able to reproduce but they can't, they want to but they can't. 

The assumption that homosexuals want to do things EXACTLY how heterosexuals do so is absolutely moronic.  The only equality asked for by homosexuals is to be able to marry
You said "the assumption that homosexuals want to do things exactly how heterosexuals do so is absolutely moronic" then in your very next sentence you say "the only equality asked for by homosexuals is to be able to marry"

.  According to you my friend homosexuals didn't want to do things exactly the way heterosexuals do, but yet they want to get married just like hetersexuals couple and be recognized as such.  That's the contradiction in your statement champ.  You took one step forward only to take one step backwards.  Not to worry, like I said earlier, we are helpers one of another. 

How is that an assumption champ, with regard to this topic what they are asking for is pretty damn clear....even a monkey with anencephaly could figure that one out. You're making assumptions about the reproductive desires of gay people based on your desires as a heterosexual. So I'm just assuming when I say "gay people have been fighting for the right to marry". Maybe I missed something during all the excitement when the gay marriage laws were passed. Nah you right son, that's an assumption on my part and not at all based on observation.

They don't want to do everything the way heterosexuals want to. If you can read refer to were I stated that that's like saying if black people want to go to the same school as whites they have to do everything the same way whites to it. Of course you'll ignore that little bit beccause there's no rebutal.

Come at me champ....I got all day.

Black people need to do everything the way white people do it, if they want to be treated like equals. Stupidity.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

If they do want to do things as heterosexual couples do, what of it? I would hope gay couples don't want to do marriage exactly like straight couples because more than half of marriages--straight marriages--end in divorce.

Then what about the other half of straight couples that actually stay married.  Don't just look at the negative or the bad sides of things, in this example the divorce rate among straight couples, make sure you look at the positives as well.  There are going to be negatives in any aspect of life, but don't use the negatives from a situation to try and draw light onto other subject in an attempt to try and make it seem better. 

Many gay people are ok with raising an adopted child together with their partner. Some who do want a child that is a part of their DNA use surrogates.
That's because those are the only options they have champ.  It's either adopt, have a surrogate partner, or watch the early stages of parenthood from the sidelines as heterosexual couples reproduce since homosexual couples can't. 

There is clearly no way to combine the genes of 2 males or 2 females but NEVER say never in science. In the future this may be a possibility
Well as of now, meaning right now 2 males or 2 females can't combine genes.  That's just the way it is. 

Dude is assuming because gays want to marry, this somehow means they desire to produce children the way that homosexuals do
No assumption involved champ, just ask around as I did and you will see that some homosexual couples would love to be able to reproduce but they can't, they want to but they can't. 

The assumption that homosexuals want to do things EXACTLY how heterosexuals do so is absolutely moronic.  The only equality asked for by homosexuals is to be able to marry
You said "the assumption that homosexuals want to do things exactly how heterosexuals do so is absolutely moronic" then in your very next sentence you say "the only equality asked for by homosexuals is to be able to marry"

.  According to you my friend homosexuals didn't want to do things exactly the way heterosexuals do, but yet they want to get married just like hetersexuals couple and be recognized as such.  That's the contradiction in your statement champ.  You took one step forward only to take one step backwards.  Not to worry, like I said earlier, we are helpers one of another. 

How is that an assumption champ, with regard to this topic what they are asking for is pretty damn clear....even a monkey with anencephaly could figure that one out. You're making assumptions about the reproductive desires of gay people based on your desires as a heterosexual. So I'm just assuming when I say "gay people have been fighting for the right to marry". Maybe I missed something during all the excitement when the gay marriage laws were passed. Nah you right son, that's an assumption on my part and not at all based on observation.

They don't want to do everything the way heterosexuals want to. If you can read refer to were I stated that that's like saying if black people want to go to the same school as whites they have to do everything the same way whites to it. Of course you'll ignore that little bit beccause there's no rebutal.

Come at me champ....I got all day.

Black people need to do everything the way white people do it, if they want to be treated like equals. Stupidity.

 

[cronicmolemolereturns]

DC don't you ever have homework in HS?

 

[cronicmolemolereturns]

DC don't you ever have homework in HS?

 

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by RealRubirosa

Human rights on the other hand (IE: all races being viewed as equal) as I stressed repeatedly in the previous section, is one that is given to you just for being born human, regardless of how a "society" views it, or if a society even exists.

Are gays not humans?

If marriage is simply some sort of frivolous societal right--sort of like formal education, right to vote, eating at certain restaurants, drinking from certain water fountains, and virtually every single of the things that the famous civil rights movement was fighting for--then your logic leads us to think that either a) we should let them get married or b) we should not have cared to give blacks any of the rights that were fought so hard for.

Let me try to preempt an argument you may come back with--that the civil rights was more a fight for equality rather than for frivolous societal privileges. If we look at it that way, then why should gays not get ALL of the same equalities? So they can drink from community fountains, eat at restaurants, vote, but we can't give them marriage? Why not? Are they some sort of sub-human creature? Are they less of a human? How much less? 2/5 less than a full human? I think you're seeing what I'm getting at.

Like I said in my first reply, the only thing I'm seeing is people trying to belittle gays and say that their rights aren't as important as another minority's rights. Or that the right they want doesn't count because of the element of their being that makes them a minority... essentially just saying they can't have it because they're different.

You all do realize that by saying somebody should not get a certain right simply because they are homosexual is extremely similar to saying the same thing about another person simply because they are different in race, religion, color, creed, etc., right? It all boils down to social intolerance.
Stopped reading there. Straw-man fallacy.
You either once again failed to understand my position (because you equate marriage to the things I bolded, the exact opposite from what I tried my best to make clear for you IE: equal racial access to the bolded is a human right unlike marriage)

or you are trolling. Either way I made my point and the discussion is going to be fruitless if you cannot comprehend simple concepts even after having them broken down, underlined, bolded, repeated multiple times... I seen no point in wasting my time.

 

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by RealRubirosa

Human rights on the other hand (IE: all races being viewed as equal) as I stressed repeatedly in the previous section, is one that is given to you just for being born human, regardless of how a "society" views it, or if a society even exists.

Are gays not humans?

If marriage is simply some sort of frivolous societal right--sort of like formal education, right to vote, eating at certain restaurants, drinking from certain water fountains, and virtually every single of the things that the famous civil rights movement was fighting for--then your logic leads us to think that either a) we should let them get married or b) we should not have cared to give blacks any of the rights that were fought so hard for.

Let me try to preempt an argument you may come back with--that the civil rights was more a fight for equality rather than for frivolous societal privileges. If we look at it that way, then why should gays not get ALL of the same equalities? So they can drink from community fountains, eat at restaurants, vote, but we can't give them marriage? Why not? Are they some sort of sub-human creature? Are they less of a human? How much less? 2/5 less than a full human? I think you're seeing what I'm getting at.

Like I said in my first reply, the only thing I'm seeing is people trying to belittle gays and say that their rights aren't as important as another minority's rights. Or that the right they want doesn't count because of the element of their being that makes them a minority... essentially just saying they can't have it because they're different.

You all do realize that by saying somebody should not get a certain right simply because they are homosexual is extremely similar to saying the same thing about another person simply because they are different in race, religion, color, creed, etc., right? It all boils down to social intolerance.
Stopped reading there. Straw-man fallacy.
You either once again failed to understand my position (because you equate marriage to the things I bolded, the exact opposite from what I tried my best to make clear for you IE: equal racial access to the bolded is a human right unlike marriage)

or you are trolling. Either way I made my point and the discussion is going to be fruitless if you cannot comprehend simple concepts even after having them broken down, underlined, bolded, repeated multiple times... I seen no point in wasting my time.

 

[realrubirosa]

You either once again failed to understand my position (because you equate marriage to the things I bolded, the exact opposite from what I tried my best to make clear for you)

No, champ, marriage IS just like the things you bolded. You failed to realize that I wasn't simply making a comparison, I was grouping all of these civil rights together. You obviously just don't want gays to have all the civil rights that are afforded to other minorities and that's fine... if you're a socially intolerant bigot. Otherwise, it's not so fine.

 

[realrubirosa]

You either once again failed to understand my position (because you equate marriage to the things I bolded, the exact opposite from what I tried my best to make clear for you)

No, champ, marriage IS just like the things you bolded. You failed to realize that I wasn't simply making a comparison, I was grouping all of these civil rights together. You obviously just don't want gays to have all the civil rights that are afforded to other minorities and that's fine... if you're a socially intolerant bigot. Otherwise, it's not so fine.

 

[tkthafm]

.....and I already explained why it was not in as dumbed down terms as possible.

If you fail to/refuse to accept that and want to view me as a bigot or whatever else... I ain't even mad.

 

[tkthafm]

.....and I already explained why it was not in as dumbed down terms as possible.

If you fail to/refuse to accept that and want to view me as a bigot or whatever else... I ain't even mad.

 

[trent ferris]

Marriage is an outmoded concept to begin with.

Same dudes on here up in arms about gay marriage spend their time thinking about how marriage is outdated and not worth it for men anymore.

I'm down for polygamy, gay marriage, marrying your brother/sister, whatever. Just because it's legal doesn't mean people are guaranteed/all of a sudden feel the need to do it. Either they've always wanted to and now they can, or they never wanted to in the first place and still won't.

All it really is is two consenting adults agreeing to share legal responsibilities. And do the sex with eachother on a regular basis.

 

[trent ferris]

Marriage is an outmoded concept to begin with.

Same dudes on here up in arms about gay marriage spend their time thinking about how marriage is outdated and not worth it for men anymore.

I'm down for polygamy, gay marriage, marrying your brother/sister, whatever. Just because it's legal doesn't mean people are guaranteed/all of a sudden feel the need to do it. Either they've always wanted to and now they can, or they never wanted to in the first place and still won't.

All it really is is two consenting adults agreeing to share legal responsibilities. And do the sex with eachother on a regular basis.

 

[realrubirosa]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

.....and I already explained why it was not in as dumbed down terms as possible.

If you fail to/refuse to accept that and want to view me as a bigot or whatever else... I ain't even mad.

Then I don't think the terms were the dumb part of your post.

 

[realrubirosa]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

.....and I already explained why it was not in as dumbed down terms as possible.

If you fail to/refuse to accept that and want to view me as a bigot or whatever else... I ain't even mad.

Then I don't think the terms were the dumb part of your post.

 

[Betonblck]

RealRubirosa

---

what are your thoughts on this?

what really separates gay marriage from civil rights is that technically, gays can get married, it just has to be someone of the opposite sex. If the laws said that gays could not marry anybody, no matter what, it would be a civil rights issue.

 

[Betonblck]

RealRubirosa

---

what are your thoughts on this?

what really separates gay marriage from civil rights is that technically, gays can get married, it just has to be someone of the opposite sex. If the laws said that gays could not marry anybody, no matter what, it would be a civil rights issue.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by cguy610

It's not as much of a civil rights issue because people are not being put in jail for trying to get married in a state that does not recognize same sex marriage. 

I will admit that it technically is a civil rights issue but not in the same way as the civil rights movement in which Black people were thrown in jail for trying to eat at the same table as whites.  (which was the premise of this whole discussion on comparing the two)

So the definition of "civil rights" has to have a component of jail punishment in it?

We live in the year 2011 so do you want us to revert to actions in the past just to prove another groups fight for equality? People are making the same stupid mistakes in this thread at least you attempted to correct yourself. That isn't the premise of this thread. No one is making a comparison of the "severity" of both struggles.

When someone mentions the civil rights movement, you are making a comparison.  Which means that the "severity" is being compared.

Anyways, the main issue behind gay marriage is because it was defined as between a man and woman.  That is much different than civil rights in which it was an arbitrary, "I'm not going to serve gays/handicapped/blacks, because I don't like them"

Or perhaps, the ignorance is being compared? This happens all the time, civil rights movements and revolutions inspire one another all the time....it's just different now cause it involves homosexuals and that's disugusting. Even MLK himself was inspired by another civil rights movement. Black people don't have a monopoly on civil rights. Civil rights have a diversity of reasons and "severity".

I'm not going to let gays marry because of religious reasons is very similar to I'm not gonna let blacks marry whites because black aren't people. Same ignorance (not severity

). This "definition" of marriage has been used to strip gay people of their RIGHT to get married. The definition of what makes you a human being was part of the mentality that lead to many atrocities against black people. Is the definition the main issue or are "equal rights" the main issue?


Point blank why black people get called out on this comes down to hypocrisy....a lot of them going as far as adopting the same mentalities as their oppressors.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by cguy610

It's not as much of a civil rights issue because people are not being put in jail for trying to get married in a state that does not recognize same sex marriage. 

I will admit that it technically is a civil rights issue but not in the same way as the civil rights movement in which Black people were thrown in jail for trying to eat at the same table as whites.  (which was the premise of this whole discussion on comparing the two)

So the definition of "civil rights" has to have a component of jail punishment in it?

We live in the year 2011 so do you want us to revert to actions in the past just to prove another groups fight for equality? People are making the same stupid mistakes in this thread at least you attempted to correct yourself. That isn't the premise of this thread. No one is making a comparison of the "severity" of both struggles.

When someone mentions the civil rights movement, you are making a comparison.  Which means that the "severity" is being compared.

Anyways, the main issue behind gay marriage is because it was defined as between a man and woman.  That is much different than civil rights in which it was an arbitrary, "I'm not going to serve gays/handicapped/blacks, because I don't like them"

Or perhaps, the ignorance is being compared? This happens all the time, civil rights movements and revolutions inspire one another all the time....it's just different now cause it involves homosexuals and that's disugusting. Even MLK himself was inspired by another civil rights movement. Black people don't have a monopoly on civil rights. Civil rights have a diversity of reasons and "severity".

I'm not going to let gays marry because of religious reasons is very similar to I'm not gonna let blacks marry whites because black aren't people. Same ignorance (not severity

). This "definition" of marriage has been used to strip gay people of their RIGHT to get married. The definition of what makes you a human being was part of the mentality that lead to many atrocities against black people. Is the definition the main issue or are "equal rights" the main issue?


Point blank why black people get called out on this comes down to hypocrisy....a lot of them going as far as adopting the same mentalities as their oppressors.

 

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

So the definition of "civil rights" has to have a component of jail punishment in it?

We live in the year 2011 so do you want us to revert to actions in the past just to prove another groups fight for equality? People are making the same stupid mistakes in this thread at least you attempted to correct yourself. That isn't the premise of this thread. No one is making a comparison of the "severity" of both struggles.

When someone mentions the civil rights movement, you are making a comparison.  Which means that the "severity" is being compared.

Anyways, the main issue behind gay marriage is because it was defined as between a man and woman.  That is much different than civil rights in which it was an arbitrary, "I'm not going to serve gays/handicapped/blacks, because I don't like them"

Or perhaps, the ignorance is being compared? This happens all the time, civil rights movements and revolutions inspire one another all the time....it's just different now cause it involves homosexuals and that's disugusting. Even MLK himself was inspired by another civil rights movement. Black people don't have a monopoly on civil rights. Civil rights have a diversity of reasons and "severity".

I'm not going to let gays marry because of religious reasons is very similar to I'm not gonna let blacks marry whites because black aren't people. Same ignorance (not severity

). This "definition" of marriage has been used to strip gay people of their RIGHT to get married. The definition of what makes you a human being was part of the mentality that lead to many atrocities against black people. Is the definition the main issue or are "equal rights" the main issue?


Point blank why black people get called out on this comes down to hypocrisy....a lot of them going as far as adopting the same mentalities as their oppressors.

Another guy who missed the point of my post. I think the main thing here is that people don't understand what marriage is, or don't understand what a human right is, and try to link the two through flawed logic.

 

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

So the definition of "civil rights" has to have a component of jail punishment in it?

We live in the year 2011 so do you want us to revert to actions in the past just to prove another groups fight for equality? People are making the same stupid mistakes in this thread at least you attempted to correct yourself. That isn't the premise of this thread. No one is making a comparison of the "severity" of both struggles.

When someone mentions the civil rights movement, you are making a comparison.  Which means that the "severity" is being compared.

Anyways, the main issue behind gay marriage is because it was defined as between a man and woman.  That is much different than civil rights in which it was an arbitrary, "I'm not going to serve gays/handicapped/blacks, because I don't like them"

Or perhaps, the ignorance is being compared? This happens all the time, civil rights movements and revolutions inspire one another all the time....it's just different now cause it involves homosexuals and that's disugusting. Even MLK himself was inspired by another civil rights movement. Black people don't have a monopoly on civil rights. Civil rights have a diversity of reasons and "severity".

I'm not going to let gays marry because of religious reasons is very similar to I'm not gonna let blacks marry whites because black aren't people. Same ignorance (not severity

). This "definition" of marriage has been used to strip gay people of their RIGHT to get married. The definition of what makes you a human being was part of the mentality that lead to many atrocities against black people. Is the definition the main issue or are "equal rights" the main issue?


Point blank why black people get called out on this comes down to hypocrisy....a lot of them going as far as adopting the same mentalities as their oppressors.

Another guy who missed the point of my post. I think the main thing here is that people don't understand what marriage is, or don't understand what a human right is, and try to link the two through flawed logic.

 

[realrubirosa]

Originally Posted by cguy610

RealRubirosa

---

what are your thoughts on this?

what really separates gay marriage from civil rights is that technically, gays can get married, it just has to be someone of the opposite sex. If the laws said that gays could not marry anybody, no matter what, it would be a civil rights issue.


This either cannot exist (theoretically, if they were to marry somebody of the opposite sex then they would not be, by definition, gay) or it is trying to establish a "separate but equal" type of scenario. Pretty much forcing them to convert just so they can get a marriage license and, in doing so, completely destroying whatever traditional societal ties that marriage is supposed to have (like being with the person you truly love and all that stuff).
But, in all actuality, that whole phrase you quoted is just a twist of words that is trying to catch logical fallacies and confuse people by using terms that are, in most casual conversational uses, interchangeable. That is, I would like to imagine that, while discussing within the confines of this thread, "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage" could be understood to mean the same thing.

 

[realrubirosa]

Originally Posted by cguy610

RealRubirosa

---

what are your thoughts on this?

what really separates gay marriage from civil rights is that technically, gays can get married, it just has to be someone of the opposite sex. If the laws said that gays could not marry anybody, no matter what, it would be a civil rights issue.


This either cannot exist (theoretically, if they were to marry somebody of the opposite sex then they would not be, by definition, gay) or it is trying to establish a "separate but equal" type of scenario. Pretty much forcing them to convert just so they can get a marriage license and, in doing so, completely destroying whatever traditional societal ties that marriage is supposed to have (like being with the person you truly love and all that stuff).
But, in all actuality, that whole phrase you quoted is just a twist of words that is trying to catch logical fallacies and confuse people by using terms that are, in most casual conversational uses, interchangeable. That is, I would like to imagine that, while discussing within the confines of this thread, "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage" could be understood to mean the same thing.