Our era's American civil rights issue: A milestone on gay discrimination

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Again your argument is because I am black I have to support gay marriage. Its old and tired. Also this is the biggest slap in the face for all the gay marriage. Civil rights had a very strong backing from those of bible believing folks. People who believed that discrimination was against God. Now you can try to pretend that influence was small, but it wasn't. Many supported civil rights not from a legal constitutional perspective, but from a church perspective as well. This idea that christian beliefs were not apart of the making of law in this country is a lie.
No my argument is if everyone only cared about themselves and their issues, like you indicate, civil rights, woman's rights, etc would have gone nowhere as white males had all power. But many whites did stand up and represent others rights thankfully. OTOH - You want to preserve Jim Crow like laws on a minority - that's called a Bigot.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
If Adam has the right to marry Eve, but Jane does not have the right to marry Eve, then Jane does not have rights equal to Adam's. This is a prima facie violation of the 14th Amendment, equivalent in principle to women's suffrage.

Suck it, ignorant Republican bigots.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Again your argument is because I am black I have to support gay marriage. Its old and tired. Also this is the biggest slap in the face for all the gay marriage. Civil rights had a very strong backing from those of bible believing folks. People who believed that discrimination was against God. Now you can try to pretend that influence was small, but it wasn't. Many supported civil rights not from a legal constitutional perspective, but from a church perspective as well. This idea that christian beliefs were not apart of the making of law in this country is a lie.

So we should govern our country from the majorities "church perspective"? One question for ya Skippy, what happens if the majority happen to not agree with YOUR "church perspective"? Lets pretend that the majority of the country converts to a religion that believes that women are not equal to men and that women should have their rights stripped, would that be right or wrong? What about your rights, should the majorities "church perspective" have anything to do with your rights as an American citizen? Should blacks still be slaves if the majority were not Christians?

As a side note, almost every really racist person I have ever met was also a Jesus loving church going person. Does that mean that Christ and racism are somehow related? Of course not, it probably means that the majority of the country believes in Christ and therefore the majority of the assholes will also believe in Christ. Correlation does not imply causation.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
I am not ashamed to say I have my belief on this rooted from the bible. I don't care what kind of names or any other junk they or you say. Their opinions ain't create Jesus and I am not going to answer to him on behalf of your beliefs either. Freedom is not just about getting rights, its just as much about accepting responsibility as well.
Do you believe idolatry should be illegal?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
If Adam has the right to marry Eve, but Jane does not have the right to marry Eve, then Jane does not have rights equal to Adam's. This is a prima facie violation of the 14th Amendment, equivalent in principle to women's suffrage.

Suck it, ignorant Republican bigots.

Pssst, a fuckton of Dems don't like them gay folk either. For example, I am pretty sure that Classy is not a Republican but I could be wrong. Matter of fact, most black folk do not support gays yet the vast majority of black folk are and vote Democrat. It has nothing to do with party and everything to do with "church". Most black folk are Baptists or very similar denomination of Christianity, that has just an itsy bit more to do with their view on gay folks than their party.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
Don't kid yourself Craig... this isn't about "following the Constitution"... the CA supreme court already ruled that this was constitutional. This is about your agenda and what YOU want, wrapped in the guise of "being constitutional".

One openly gay judge overrules millions of voters and the justices of the CA supreme court on an issue, and you call it a triumph of constitutionality. A bill that was challenged on numerous occasions on constitutional grounds, and was upheld time and time again, is shot down by one man with an obvious agenda, and you triumph it.

Of course, since the judge was appointed by a Bush, according to you he made the wrong decision.

This is no different than the AZ immigration law. It will go to a higher court, and the decision will be reversed.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,513
16,236
146
Classy, it is both very amusing and sad all at the same time that, after all these years of you branding me a racist, it is YOU that is the small minded bigot.

Sexual orientation, i.e., who we are attracted to sexually, is not a choice, nor a behavior. It is inherent. Just as the color of your skin.

You claim homosexuality is a behavior. No. Acting in accordance with one's innate sexual orientation is behavior. HAVING the orientation is INHERENT. Acting ghetto or gangsta is a behavior. Being black is INHERENT.

No wonder you could never separate the two in our conversations about race. You have absolutely no clue what the difference is between inherent traits, and behavior.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
It really is amazing how so many blacks, the victims of whites viewing them as 'lesser' and wanting separation from them for that reason, can't connect their hard-won victory for equality legally, and the way that they are guilty of the same thing in their view of gays as 'lesser' people it's ok to discriminate against - in marriage rights, and often more, making them the exact same type of bigot, expressed when they are OFFENDED, OUTRAGED at any comparison between the black civil rights movement and the gay civil rights movement - both of which are about the wrong of treating a group of human beings as less deserving because of bigotry.

They don't understand that their very outrage at the comparisons of the movements is proof of the bigotry they have.

To whites who oppose both forms of bigotry, the comparison is obvious. It's too bad more blacks don't behave like civil rights leaders did, and support others' equal rights.

And oh by the way - the same can be said for Muslims, who have many anti-gay bigots. They, too, can talk a lot about why bigotry against them is wrong - not not gays.

This really isn't meant to just attack them - bigotry is hard to overcome. We could all easily be bigots, depending on our upbringing and culture we're in.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Do you believe idolatry should be illegal?

They would if they could...i.e. had the numbers like they did in Middle ages or Muslims do in ME now where it's a death sentence. So is homosexuality coincidentally.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Pssst, a fuckton of Dems don't like them gay folk either. For example, I am pretty sure that Classy is not a Republican but I could be wrong. Matter of fact, most black folk do not support gays yet the vast majority of black folk are and vote Democrat. It has nothing to do with party and everything to do with "church". Most black folk are Baptists or very similar denomination of Christianity, that has just an itsy bit more to do with their view on gay folks than their party.

You're right. But the same issues of bigotry, the role of religion and so on apply regardless whether it's white bigots on blacks, black bigots on gays, or gay bigots on Muslims.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
Suck it, ignorant Republican bigots.

Yeah, all those Republicans in California...

All those fucking Republican bigots who voted for Obama... what a bunch of fucking idiot bigots.

All those fucking bigots on the California supreme court who rules in favor of the ban. FUCK.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
I am just laughing at many of the responses. They are all the same. If you are a minority you should support every other minority, no matter the issue, :confused: okay...... The anti-god and bible stuff comments are just stupid. You are just being silly now, saying just dumb stuff to make a post. But hey maybe I am wrong

But a gay judge ruling gay marriage should be legal, who would have thunk it?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Individuals should be free to do what they please, and consent to whatever they please, so long as they do not violate the rights of another individual. Period.

I'd modify this slightly:

Individuals should be free to do what they please, and consent to whatever they please, so long as they do not violate the rights of another individual and so long as their actions don't pose an unacceptable risk to the welfare of others.

For example, allowing individuals to drive 200 mph on public highways doesn't directly violate the rights of other individuals, but the threat to the welfare of others is sufficiently great that such behavior shouldn't be allowed.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Do you believe idolatry should be illegal?

There are many, many examples of the literal bible every one of these people do not follow.

For just one example, the instruction that a man who rapes a woman 'outside town' has to marry her and pay her family 50 silver pieces. Let's do that!

This is one reason I accuse him of misusing religion as an excuse to justify bigotry, just as bigots have in the past to defend racism.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I'd modify this slightly:

Individuals should be free to do what they please, and consent to whatever they please, so long as they do not violate the rights of another individual and so long as their actions don't pose an unacceptable risk to the welfare of others.

For example, allowing individuals to drive 200 mph on public highways doesn't directly violate the rights of other individuals, but the threat to the welfare of others is sufficiently great that such behavior shouldn't be allowed.

This is moving to libertarian debate, and I don't really agree. For one thing, there's defining harm.

There are arguments made by pro-pedophilia people that the harm to children of being in a loving relationship with an adult is greatly exaggerated.

However much disagreement there is with them, they can point to our inconsistent age of consent laws, and the history of marriage often being very young for their side.

The point isn't who's right, but that 'harm' isn't black and white. Is every 16 year old having a glass of wine at dinner 'harm'? Ask France.

It's not all about kids. Is becoming a meth glue huffing crack addict 'inherently' hurting society creating someone who is likely to do bad things? Where do you draw the line?

Is bribing a board to let you put your new factory where citizens don't want it 'harmful' to anyone? And so on, it's a tiresome topic all about trying to use a simple cliche for policy.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
A black person marrying a white person didn't change health class in school. A vagina is vagina and pipe is a pipe. Color or ethnicity is not behavior.

So you seriously considered fucking guys for a while and then read the bible and made up your mind? If its a "behavior" which indicates choice then obviously you must "choose" to be a heterosexual as well, correct? If that is in fact the case then maybe you are repressing something because I didn't choose to like women. Back in school my pecker started making that choice for me, often at very inconvenient times.

And WTF are you talking about "health class in school"? No one is arguing that a vagina aint a vagina.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Yeah, all those Republicans in California...

All those fucking Republican bigots who voted for Obama... what a bunch of fucking idiot bigots.

All those fucking bigots on the California supreme court who rules in favor of the ban. FUCK.
Anybody that opposes marriage equality is an ignorant bigot, plain and simple. The largest concentration of those are to be found, as usual, in the Republican party.

It is not unnoticed that you did not even attempt to dispute the substance of my post, however. Naturally, that is because it is indisputable. I bet that just burns you up, too. It should.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
So you seriously considered fucking guys for a while and then read the bible and made up your mind? If its a "behavior" which indicates choice then obviously you must "choose" to be a heterosexual as well, correct? If that is in fact the case then maybe you are repressing something because I didn't choose to like women. Back in school my pecker started making that choice for me, often at very inconvenient times.

And WTF are you talking about "health class in school"? No one is arguing that a vagina aint a vagina.

Come on man, ease up some. No one was considering having sex with guys. Your just being a complete moron now.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
It really is amazing how so many blacks, the victims of whites viewing them as 'lesser' and wanting separation from them for that reason, can't connect their hard-won victory for equality legally, and the way that they are guilty of the same thing in their view of gays as 'lesser' people it's ok to discriminate against - in marriage rights, and often more, making them the exact same type of bigot, expressed when they are OFFENDED, OUTRAGED at any comparison between the black civil rights movement and the gay civil rights movement - both of which are about the wrong of treating a group of human beings as less deserving because of bigotry.

They don't understand that their very outrage at the comparisons of the movements is proof of the bigotry they have.

To whites who oppose both forms of bigotry, the comparison is obvious. It's too bad more blacks don't behave like civil rights leaders did, and support others' equal rights.

And oh by the way - the same can be said for Muslims, who have many anti-gay bigots. They, too, can talk a lot about why bigotry against them is wrong - not not gays.

This really isn't meant to just attack them - bigotry is hard to overcome. We could all easily be bigots, depending on our upbringing and culture we're in.

Homophobia runs high in black community. Has little to do with bible but rather cultural whereby they believe they are not manly if they are gay. Most black men want to be associated with strong and dominant traits certainly not with the stereotype of gay men is that they are all girlymen.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Classy, it is both very amusing and sad all at the same time that, after all these years of you branding me a racist, it is YOU that is the small minded bigot.

Sexual orientation, i.e., who we are attracted to sexually, is not a choice, nor a behavior. It is inherent. Just as the color of your skin.

You claim homosexuality is a behavior. No. Acting in accordance with one's innate sexual orientation is behavior. HAVING the orientation is INHERENT. Acting ghetto or gangsta is a behavior. Being black is INHERENT.

No wonder you could never separate the two in our conversations about race. You have absolutely no clue what the difference is between inherent traits, and behavior.
As far as I know, homosexuality is one of those "for-all-intents-and-purposes" inherent traits, but not strictly and rigorously inherent the way that skin color is. That is to say, there are known alleles in the gene pool that determine skin color, but there is no such known equivalent for sexual orientation. Quite frankly, I doubt that one exists.

It is rather irrelevant, however, as the core issue is one of gender discrimination, which is a trait even more "inherent" than skin color.

The end result is the same, therefore, so the charges you've laid against "classy" :rolleyes: are valid.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Pssst, a fuckton of Dems don't like them gay folk either. For example, I am pretty sure that Classy is not a Republican but I could be wrong. Matter of fact, most black folk do not support gays yet the vast majority of black folk are and vote Democrat. It has nothing to do with party and everything to do with "church". Most black folk are Baptists or very similar denomination of Christianity, that has just an itsy bit more to do with their view on gay folks than their party.

I don't know if I fall in that category but your post is spot on. Blacks fought for equal rights and the very backbone and strength of that struggle was fuled by bible believing folks. The same bible in the new NT that says its a disgrace for men to be laying up with men. But now we are to some how toss that book away and following the beliefs of these folks. Not gonna happen.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Homophobia runs high in black community. Has little to do with bible but rather cultural whereby they believe they are not manly if they are gay. Most black men want to be associated with strong and dominant traits certainly not with the stereotype of gay men is that they are all girlymen.

Huh? LOL.........You are not manly if your gay. Give me a break............ We actually believe the bible, Zeebs. Its not for show or some gimmick. We ain't perfect, we make a lot mistakes, flatout disobey, get a lot of stuff wrong, but we also get a lot stuff right. Look on this issue I have my belief rooted in scripture. So what, sue me.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
I don't know if I fall in that category but your post is spot on. Blacks fought for equal rights and the very backbone and strength of that struggle was fuled by bible believing folks. The same bible in the new NT that says its a disgrace for men to be laying up with men. But now we are to some how toss that book away and following the beliefs of these folks. Not gonna happen.
The only reference in the New Testament to any kind of homosexual behavior was the pederasty practiced by Hellenic Greeks in worship of their pagan god Molech which Paul railed against in Corinthians. The extrapolation of that to a blanket prohibition of adult consensual emotional and sexual homosexual relationships is simply bigotry wrapped in a veil of religiosity.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Don't kid yourself Craig... this isn't about "following the Constitution"... the CA supreme court already ruled that this was constitutional. This is about your agenda and what YOU want, wrapped in the guise of "being constitutional".

One openly gay judge overrules millions of voters and the justices of the CA supreme court on an issue, and you call it a triumph of constitutionality. A bill that was challenged on numerous occasions on constitutional grounds, and was upheld time and time again, is shot down by one man with an obvious agenda, and you triumph it.

Of course, since the judge was appointed by a Bush, according to you he made the wrong decision.

This is no different than the AZ immigration law. It will go to a higher court, and the decision will be reversed.

I need to touch on your post. Because its amazing. Some of the same people who would accuse Obama and Holder of wrong doing like in the case of the Black Panther, saying OB let him get away because he is black, are in here flapping their gums are ok with a gay judge, an openly gay judge, ruling in favor of gay marriage. Just doesn't add up.................