|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 14 2014 11:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2014 11:47 KwarK wrote:
The degree of sincerity with which a person believes another group to be inferior has never before been important in judging whether or not they're allowed to discriminate. Nobody doubts that homophobes are serious about, we just don't see how that's different from how serious racists were about racism. Sincerity does not excuse discrimination. Once again, displaying that all anyone here knows are talking points and stereotypes. I personally don't know of anyone who believes gays to be "inferior" like people did about blacks. They don't think they are incompetent, they DO think gays can provide for themselves, they DO think they are the same "race" (human)- please tell me in what way they think gays are "inferior." They simply believe they are sinners (like they believe EVERYONE is), and they do NOT want the state to force them into participating or condoning what they believe to be sinful activity. They want to keep the (in their view) sacred institution of marriage as ordained by God Himself. I don't actually know of any "haters" or bigots. I don't know a single person who wants them put to death like Westboro and the Islamic countries advocate. Are there people who believe gays to be from Satan himself (Westboro?) Yes. And every major Christian, Mormon, etc denomination has denounced their language. I know that it's really fun to exaggerate, but to compare this to what blacks went through is absurd.
If everybody's a sinner (your words, not mine), then why does it go against their beliefs to marry homosexuals: the only thing that distinguishes them is that they are sinning, and apparently that doesn't even distinguish them.
Or am I missing something in this argument? (Maybe logic doesn't work here, because homophobes aren't rational... which is simply another reason to not make laws empowering them)
|
On February 14 2014 12:56 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2014 12:41 KwarK wrote:
Of course I understand their point of view. They are sincerely homophobic and as such they find being forced to interact with homosexuals deeply uncomfortable and conflicting with their world view. I just don't see why their bigotry deserves legal protection, especially when bigotry and the right to discriminate based upon sincere religious opposition has been rejected elsewhere.
You have the right to sincerely oppose something. What you should not have is legal protection to discriminate based upon those beliefs. You don't have it anywhere else, it shouldn't apply here. You don't actually get it. You think they are scared. Maybe some are, but no articulate person I've ever heard is. I think you are just assuming. Do you think these institutions don't even want to see gays? No, they don't want to do anything that condones the activity, done by straight or gay people. Unless it's a church, these companies (such as Chick-fil-A) WILL hire and WILL serve gays, maybe unless asked to cater a gay wedding. It's NOT about the people. It's about the activity. That's really all there is to say about the the topic to be honest- if everyone is just going to continue the droning "they hate gay people!" then there is no point. So no, you don't get it. But I don't expect anything else here, where most haven't actually interacted and discussed the topic with educated Christians, Mormons, etc and just get their opinion from the media and manipulating politicians (who either went through the quickest values change in history or just care about pandering). Actually, private entities not associated with government are allowed to discriminate/refuse service, although the Court's use of the Commerce Clause has changed things. Show nested quote +Also I don't believe anyone who says that he knows a ton of religious people and not a single one of them has resentments towards homosexuals. Probably two thirds of all the religious people I've met think homosexuality is wrong, unnatural and should be kept out of school and public. That's not the same as hating gays, which is what I was talking about. It's hating the activity. Show nested quote +The most ridiculous part is that like literally the first thing in the constitution(which American conservatives keep so sacred) says "hey, don't mix up the state and religion!" Which is why many religious people want the government out of marriage all together. But we are talking about private citizens and their businesses, not the states. If you read the bill, the state is PROHIBITED from discriminating.
I have a real hatred for the activity of cutting in front of me in traffic. In fact, I hate that activity so much that I think people who do that sinful stuff should be banned from marrying people who also cut in front of me in traffic.
Do you see how utterly ridiculous it sounds if we substitute "having gay sex" with some other activity that the bible does not explicitly say is wrong? Especially as cutting in front of people in traffic is legitimately a societal problem, while having gay sex is something two adult people consent to and perform in their own bedroom!
|
I don't see too many churches being forced to marry people they don't like right now. They're fully capable of turning couples down for a number of reasons including not taking their silly marriage classes. I fail to see how once those awful homogays can get married it's all going to turn to shit. That's the lynchpin guys! Pass this and there will be pastors with guns to their heads forced to marry everything that moves against their will!
Your church isn't that awesome guys, there are plenty of other places to get married that don't involve being judged. Stop trying to play imaginary future victims, it's just silly.
Since gay marriage passed here in MN I should ask my mom how many gay couples have signed up to be married at the church she works at. I'm going to guess the number is somewhere around zero.
|
On February 14 2014 21:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Since gay marriage passed here in MN I should ask my mom how many gay couples have signed up to be married at the church she works at. I'm going to guess the number is somewhere around zero.
I don't see how this is an argument. Can the church refuse performing a marriage service for a gay couple? You're right, there's plenty of other great options, the problem comes when a church would like to say no, please go to another institution that can do the exact same legal service but they're not allowed...
There's so much hyperbole it makes me sad 
|
On February 14 2014 22:37 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2014 21:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Since gay marriage passed here in MN I should ask my mom how many gay couples have signed up to be married at the church she works at. I'm going to guess the number is somewhere around zero. I don't see how this is an argument. Can the church refuse performing a marriage service for a gay couple? You're right, there's plenty of other great options, the problem comes when a church would like to say no, please go to another institution that can do the exact same legal service but they're not allowed... There's so much hyperbole it makes me sad
Yeah, the ignorance in the last page or so of replies is quite unexpected, and profoundly saddening ^_^.
|
On February 14 2014 02:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2014 02:32 Wolfstan wrote:
Shouldn't that be between the company and workers? Tax incentives should have a goal in mind such as pulling value producing plants into your region and securing good paying jobs. If they are represented by a strong union are the jobs TOO good paying? I think GOP is more afraid of the union dues going to the Dems. The GOP represents big businesses (less taxes/less rules) and since big businesses hate unions (since they take power from the businesses and gives some to the workers) its natural that the GOP hates unions.
The GOP has a business faction inside it (general business though, not just 'big' business), but both parties really just favor / represent different industries. For example, Democrats usually find a lot of support coming from technology and legal industries.
Unions typically do go hand and had with Democrats though, so the GOP tends to not like them because of that and other reasons.
|
On February 14 2014 20:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2014 11:57 Introvert wrote:On February 14 2014 11:47 KwarK wrote:
The degree of sincerity with which a person believes another group to be inferior has never before been important in judging whether or not they're allowed to discriminate. Nobody doubts that homophobes are serious about, we just don't see how that's different from how serious racists were about racism. Sincerity does not excuse discrimination. Once again, displaying that all anyone here knows are talking points and stereotypes. I personally don't know of anyone who believes gays to be "inferior" like people did about blacks. They don't think they are incompetent, they DO think gays can provide for themselves, they DO think they are the same "race" (human)- please tell me in what way they think gays are "inferior." They simply believe they are sinners (like they believe EVERYONE is), and they do NOT want the state to force them into participating or condoning what they believe to be sinful activity. They want to keep the (in their view) sacred institution of marriage as ordained by God Himself. I don't actually know of any "haters" or bigots. I don't know a single person who wants them put to death like Westboro and the Islamic countries advocate. Are there people who believe gays to be from Satan himself (Westboro?) Yes. And every major Christian, Mormon, etc denomination has denounced their language. I know that it's really fun to exaggerate, but to compare this to what blacks went through is absurd. If everybody's a sinner (your words, not mine), then why does it go against their beliefs to marry homosexuals: the only thing that distinguishes them is that they are sinning, and apparently that doesn't even distinguish them. Or am I missing something in this argument? (Maybe logic doesn't work here, because homophobes aren't rational... which is simply another reason to not make laws empowering them)
I think the logic is that if its a sin, the church shouldn't be approving of it and that performing a same sex marriage is giving tacit approval.
|
On February 15 2014 00:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2014 20:34 Acrofales wrote:On February 14 2014 11:57 Introvert wrote:On February 14 2014 11:47 KwarK wrote:
The degree of sincerity with which a person believes another group to be inferior has never before been important in judging whether or not they're allowed to discriminate. Nobody doubts that homophobes are serious about, we just don't see how that's different from how serious racists were about racism. Sincerity does not excuse discrimination. Once again, displaying that all anyone here knows are talking points and stereotypes. I personally don't know of anyone who believes gays to be "inferior" like people did about blacks. They don't think they are incompetent, they DO think gays can provide for themselves, they DO think they are the same "race" (human)- please tell me in what way they think gays are "inferior." They simply believe they are sinners (like they believe EVERYONE is), and they do NOT want the state to force them into participating or condoning what they believe to be sinful activity. They want to keep the (in their view) sacred institution of marriage as ordained by God Himself. I don't actually know of any "haters" or bigots. I don't know a single person who wants them put to death like Westboro and the Islamic countries advocate. Are there people who believe gays to be from Satan himself (Westboro?) Yes. And every major Christian, Mormon, etc denomination has denounced their language. I know that it's really fun to exaggerate, but to compare this to what blacks went through is absurd. If everybody's a sinner (your words, not mine), then why does it go against their beliefs to marry homosexuals: the only thing that distinguishes them is that they are sinning, and apparently that doesn't even distinguish them. Or am I missing something in this argument? (Maybe logic doesn't work here, because homophobes aren't rational... which is simply another reason to not make laws empowering them) I think the logic is that if its a sin, the church shouldn't be approving of it and that performing a same sex marriage is giving tacit approval.
<underthebelt>
Priests molesting little boys, on the other hand, is totally okay!
</underthebelt>
But seriously, the church tacitly approves all kinds of sinful behaviours. Starting with "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house" and moving up the commandments from there. Why should being gay be a problem?
|
On February 14 2014 13:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2014 13:37 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2014 13:07 Introvert wrote:On February 14 2014 13:01 KwarK wrote:
If they wouldn't be allowed to refuse to cater to an interracial marriage they shouldn't be allowed to refuse to cater to a gay marriage. It's that simple. I know, we can boil it all down to that once sentence! Wait a minute, I just explained why it's not the same. You don't have to agree with their moral view, you just have to recognize what it is and whats it's not. "homophobia" =/= racism. One was based on the person, the other is based on what the person does or what you want to condone. Besides, at least in theory, private groups can refuse service to anyone, as long as it's not in violation of the commerce clause (I'm going to have to look over that one and see how that makes any sense). They will serve gays at their store, they might just refuse to be the caterers at a gay wedding. This law will protect the minority of business that may refuse service, it's no institutionalizing some wide problem like the black codes. I'm really done, this comparison to segregation and other such laws is simply wrong and displays that the poster knows next to nothing about the other side's position, since they figure it's so indefensible there isn't even any reason to understand it! This reminds me of the time Ted Cruz's father made the comment about sending Obama back to Kenya and somehow that was racist statement, instead of a birther/reference-to-Obama's-father reference. It's just so much easier to use "-phobia" or "-ist" and be done with it! It's not in the least bit about race. If someone believes that an interracial marriage is wrong then it doesn't matter why they believe it, only that they do sincerely believe that it's immoral. Whether they believe it's wrong due to racism, cultural beliefs, religious beliefs, fashion sense (white with black? ew) or any other reason you come up with doesn't matter in the slightest, it's not about why, it's about whether or not it's up to the provider of the service to choose who he can and cannot serve. The law has concluded that sincere personal beliefs don't allow you to discriminate against someone in that case. Gay marriage is the exact same situation, sincere beliefs wanting to discriminate. Homosexuals don't have to have been enslaved, it doesn't have to be racism, if you wanted to block an interracial marriage on sincere religious grounds rather than sincere racist grounds you wouldn't be allowed to. You just don't get it. Nobody is arguing that homophobia is literally the same thing as racism. You've been using racism as a comparison this whole time. You said that those religious persons find gays "inferior." Unless you were merely trying to make a law based judgement, instead of a moral one, then I disagree. I agree that in law sincerity is not the end all be all. So, my point also doesn't have anything to do with sincerity. But I agree, it's NOT like racism. So stop saying that those in favor "hate gays" or think they are "inferior." THAT is my problem. This continuing trend of conflating, purposely or ignorantly, two distinct views on two separate topics causes a lot of confusion.
It is basically like interracial marriage though. At its core the ban on interracial marriage was saying you should just not love a member of a different race and expect fair treatment and in fact it was discriminating against you for the color of your skin which is something you could not change. The ban on gay marriage is basically saying you should not fall in love with someone of the same gender and expect fair treatment and is punishing you for your sexual orientation which is something else you can not change.
In both cases they are saying you cant be who you are you need to someone society wants you to be and love who society wants you to love and for gays it is even worse because if you are gay (if you are bisexual you don't have this worry but still) there is no one you can fall in love with who would meet societies standards for whether or not you get to have equal treatment.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
gay hating is basically a purity morality expressing itself in terms of getting rid of the impurity(through outlawing, ostracizing, etc etc). a rather base and archaic moral sentiment that doesn't have much to do with religion, except religion being a structure that preserves the rigidity of that particular system in society.
For somebody trying to characterize what mainstream Christianity thinks, you're pretty far off the mark. Introvert's right--this is all about the worry that the State now or later will force them to participating or condoning sinful activity lol pls.
but one does not hav eto be christian to participate in gay hating. it's more basic than that, although christian fundies somehow feel entitled to preserve the holiness of america through a politicized crusade.
|
On February 15 2014 00:28 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2014 00:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 14 2014 20:34 Acrofales wrote:On February 14 2014 11:57 Introvert wrote:On February 14 2014 11:47 KwarK wrote:
The degree of sincerity with which a person believes another group to be inferior has never before been important in judging whether or not they're allowed to discriminate. Nobody doubts that homophobes are serious about, we just don't see how that's different from how serious racists were about racism. Sincerity does not excuse discrimination. Once again, displaying that all anyone here knows are talking points and stereotypes. I personally don't know of anyone who believes gays to be "inferior" like people did about blacks. They don't think they are incompetent, they DO think gays can provide for themselves, they DO think they are the same "race" (human)- please tell me in what way they think gays are "inferior." They simply believe they are sinners (like they believe EVERYONE is), and they do NOT want the state to force them into participating or condoning what they believe to be sinful activity. They want to keep the (in their view) sacred institution of marriage as ordained by God Himself. I don't actually know of any "haters" or bigots. I don't know a single person who wants them put to death like Westboro and the Islamic countries advocate. Are there people who believe gays to be from Satan himself (Westboro?) Yes. And every major Christian, Mormon, etc denomination has denounced their language. I know that it's really fun to exaggerate, but to compare this to what blacks went through is absurd. If everybody's a sinner (your words, not mine), then why does it go against their beliefs to marry homosexuals: the only thing that distinguishes them is that they are sinning, and apparently that doesn't even distinguish them. Or am I missing something in this argument? (Maybe logic doesn't work here, because homophobes aren't rational... which is simply another reason to not make laws empowering them) I think the logic is that if its a sin, the church shouldn't be approving of it and that performing a same sex marriage is giving tacit approval. <underthebelt> Priests molesting little boys, on the other hand, is totally okay! </underthebelt> But seriously, the church tacitly approves all kinds of sinful behaviours. Starting with "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house" and moving up the commandments from there. Why should being gay be a problem?
They tacitly approve of that?
Edit: what's your point, really? A given church isn't perfect, therefore, it can't consider anything wrong? I guess murder is OK since we're all imperfect or whatever?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
pls. there's science about desire for social distance from all sorts of unsavory groups. prejudice is very common. there's no need to deny that to make the gay hating look better.
|
On February 15 2014 01:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2014 00:28 Acrofales wrote:On February 15 2014 00:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 14 2014 20:34 Acrofales wrote:On February 14 2014 11:57 Introvert wrote:On February 14 2014 11:47 KwarK wrote:
The degree of sincerity with which a person believes another group to be inferior has never before been important in judging whether or not they're allowed to discriminate. Nobody doubts that homophobes are serious about, we just don't see how that's different from how serious racists were about racism. Sincerity does not excuse discrimination. Once again, displaying that all anyone here knows are talking points and stereotypes. I personally don't know of anyone who believes gays to be "inferior" like people did about blacks. They don't think they are incompetent, they DO think gays can provide for themselves, they DO think they are the same "race" (human)- please tell me in what way they think gays are "inferior." They simply believe they are sinners (like they believe EVERYONE is), and they do NOT want the state to force them into participating or condoning what they believe to be sinful activity. They want to keep the (in their view) sacred institution of marriage as ordained by God Himself. I don't actually know of any "haters" or bigots. I don't know a single person who wants them put to death like Westboro and the Islamic countries advocate. Are there people who believe gays to be from Satan himself (Westboro?) Yes. And every major Christian, Mormon, etc denomination has denounced their language. I know that it's really fun to exaggerate, but to compare this to what blacks went through is absurd. If everybody's a sinner (your words, not mine), then why does it go against their beliefs to marry homosexuals: the only thing that distinguishes them is that they are sinning, and apparently that doesn't even distinguish them. Or am I missing something in this argument? (Maybe logic doesn't work here, because homophobes aren't rational... which is simply another reason to not make laws empowering them) I think the logic is that if its a sin, the church shouldn't be approving of it and that performing a same sex marriage is giving tacit approval. <underthebelt> Priests molesting little boys, on the other hand, is totally okay! </underthebelt> But seriously, the church tacitly approves all kinds of sinful behaviours. Starting with "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house" and moving up the commandments from there. Why should being gay be a problem? They tacitly approve of that? Edit: what's your point, really? A given church isn't perfect, therefore, it can't consider anything wrong? I guess murder is OK since we're all imperfect or whatever?
Murder is against the law. Being gay isn't.
PS. The church has absolutely no problem marrying two murderers.
Anyway, we're going really far off topic, I honestly don't even care about churches and what they do or not. Gay people should have the right to a civil marriage. If some church somewhere doesn't want to marry gay people I think they should have the right to refuse. I don't think town councils should have that right. Also not if the civil servant in charge of weddings is a bible-thumping Westboro Baptist, a Salafist Imam or a just plain old homophobe.
|
On February 15 2014 02:13 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2014 01:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 15 2014 00:28 Acrofales wrote:On February 15 2014 00:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 14 2014 20:34 Acrofales wrote:On February 14 2014 11:57 Introvert wrote:On February 14 2014 11:47 KwarK wrote:
The degree of sincerity with which a person believes another group to be inferior has never before been important in judging whether or not they're allowed to discriminate. Nobody doubts that homophobes are serious about, we just don't see how that's different from how serious racists were about racism. Sincerity does not excuse discrimination. Once again, displaying that all anyone here knows are talking points and stereotypes. I personally don't know of anyone who believes gays to be "inferior" like people did about blacks. They don't think they are incompetent, they DO think gays can provide for themselves, they DO think they are the same "race" (human)- please tell me in what way they think gays are "inferior." They simply believe they are sinners (like they believe EVERYONE is), and they do NOT want the state to force them into participating or condoning what they believe to be sinful activity. They want to keep the (in their view) sacred institution of marriage as ordained by God Himself. I don't actually know of any "haters" or bigots. I don't know a single person who wants them put to death like Westboro and the Islamic countries advocate. Are there people who believe gays to be from Satan himself (Westboro?) Yes. And every major Christian, Mormon, etc denomination has denounced their language. I know that it's really fun to exaggerate, but to compare this to what blacks went through is absurd. If everybody's a sinner (your words, not mine), then why does it go against their beliefs to marry homosexuals: the only thing that distinguishes them is that they are sinning, and apparently that doesn't even distinguish them. Or am I missing something in this argument? (Maybe logic doesn't work here, because homophobes aren't rational... which is simply another reason to not make laws empowering them) I think the logic is that if its a sin, the church shouldn't be approving of it and that performing a same sex marriage is giving tacit approval. <underthebelt> Priests molesting little boys, on the other hand, is totally okay! </underthebelt> But seriously, the church tacitly approves all kinds of sinful behaviours. Starting with "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house" and moving up the commandments from there. Why should being gay be a problem? They tacitly approve of that? Edit: what's your point, really? A given church isn't perfect, therefore, it can't consider anything wrong? I guess murder is OK since we're all imperfect or whatever? Murder is against the law. Being gay isn't. PS. The church has absolutely no problem marrying two murderers. Anyway, we're going really far off topic, I honestly don't even care about churches and what they do or not. Gay people should have the right to a civil marriage. If some church somewhere doesn't want to marry gay people I think they should have the right to refuse. I don't think town councils should have that right. Also not if the civil servant in charge of weddings is a bible-thumping Westboro Baptist, a Salafist Imam or a just plain old homophobe.
Murder has nothing to do with marriage though. Conversely, when a church marries two people they're also saying that it's now OK for these two people to have sex.
I'll pretty much agree with the rest though 
|
On February 15 2014 01:55 oneofthem wrote:
pls. there's science about desire for social distance from all sorts of unsavory groups. prejudice is very common. there's no need to deny that to make the gay hating look better.
I'm not trying to make gay hating look better, I'm trying to explain a point of view. Don't be a dick.
|
Tom Perkins is desperately trying to extend his 15 minutes of infamy.
The 82-year-old venture capitalist, who recently made a lot of people angry by comparing progressives to Nazis, told an audience in San Francisco Thursday that people who pay more money in taxes should get more votes.
"The Tom Perkins system is: You don't get to vote unless you pay a dollar of taxes," Perkins said during an event hosted by Fortune's Adam Lashinsky. "But what I really think is, it should be like a corporation. You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes. How's that?"
The audience responded to his claim as any sane humans would: with laughter. After all, that’s not really how democracy works. And not that Perkins would care, but his proposal wouldn't really be fair given that poor Americans already fork over a larger share of income to Uncle Sam than their richer counterparts, according to a 2013 report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
Unfortunately, Perkins wasn’t joking around, telling the CNNMoney reporter offstage, "I intended to be outrageous, and it was."
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 15 2014 03:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2014 01:55 oneofthem wrote:
pls. there's science about desire for social distance from all sorts of unsavory groups. prejudice is very common. there's no need to deny that to make the gay hating look better. I'm not trying to make gay hating look better, I'm trying to explain a point of view. Don't be a dick.
they are not considering anything wrong tho. they are making a judgement of disgust against a group of people, so it's not like they are trying to enforce some moral code. it's a simple prejudice
|
You are all going on about how the perceived problem is that churches are in need of more protections so they don't have to (even tangentially) approve a same sex marriage. Let's provide some evidence, shall we? Otherwise, you're just defending the shit you pulled out of your ass.
http://www.standard.net/stories/2013/12/27/churches-change-bylaws-marriage-fear-lawsuits-gay-couples
Now what this says is that churches are not, and have not been forced to marry gay people. What it does say is that gay people may try to take advantage of public, secular services offered by religious people and organizations.
Now to go back to the black thing (because, yes, it is a very good comparison and has developed in pretty much the same way). Many places didn't want to serve blacks. Now many places don't want to serve gays. What do you do? Well they're doing the exact same thing they did back then. They stop operating a business that is open to the public. (See country clubs)
This is the way it is and the way it should stay. There are no more 'protections' needed. Either you're open to the public or you're not. It's pretty black and white. Public - gays =\= public. So, as always, if you don't want to serve blacks, queers, dwarfs, or catholics, you have the wonderful option of not engaging in public enterprise.
|
Somewhat related to the topic at hand. Anybody know of any studies that track the quantitative benefits of marriage?
|
The Gay ~= Black comparison with regards to the anti-gay-discrimination-enabling laws is valid because both Gays and Blacks are groups that have been subject to historic legal discrimination as groups. Gayness was criminal within living memory. Blackness was the basis for adverse legal treatment (de-jure segregation) within living memory. There is a real analogy there.
And of course, the people that fought for segregation to continue just happen to look and act just like the people that are fighting now to support anti-gay-discrimination-enabling laws. Same group of flag waving jingoistic scumbags, just a slightly different time and a different group to discriminate against. The segregation supporters crowed about their rights and their morality just like the modern anti-gay crusaders do now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
