2.) yes this is a fact it was about how some people were NOT for equality and rights of us all, it was about people who wanted to discriminate and not and not grant civil rights. Does it support your failed post about racism though? nope
3.) yes this is a fact and a victory for equality, equal and civil rights. Does it support your failed post about racism though? nope
4.) nothing was out of context. it was about fight for equality, equal and civil rights and ending discrimination just like now. SO it was a fact he was equating and he was right. Does it support your failed post about racism though? nope
5.) no this is NOT a fact it was about equality, discrimination and equal and civil rights. and the reference was about how another discrimination is now falling
6.) 100% factually false as already proven above and by the definition of the word that totally disagrees with your made up definition. there is NO form of racism here at all. if you disagree by all means use the definition and point it out.
sorry you post loses to facts again
let us know when you have ANY FACTS that support your failed post. Ill be waiting
"...same-sex couples face a patchwork of laws under which their marriages might go from recognized to unrecognized and back again simply by taking a road trip. But if your home state says you're married, and the federal government says you're married, can Mississippi really say that you are not?
"That is the question at the root of the impending showdown and sooner or later -- likely sooner -- it will go to the courts, probably all the way to the top. The Constitution saying what it says, the Defense of Marriage Act having been partly overturned, the tide of public acceptance being what it is, it is hard to imagine the answer will be favorable to the foes of marriage equality.
Once again, the hidebound elements in this country will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the present. Once again, change will come. Once again -- as was the case with segregation, women's rights, workers' rights -- that change will be something that is imposed by the many upon the obstinate few.
That is regrettable. Change that is imposed is almost invariably change that is resented. And resentment brings challenges of its own. On the other hand, if those hidebound elements truly require dragging, kicking and screaming, last week's IRS ruling suggests the rest of the country stands ready to accommodate them.
Abraham Lincoln spoke a verity for the ages, one America would be well-advised to heed. Make no mistake: The showdown is inevitable.
A moment of decision is coming once again to this divided house."
What you see as "race", stealing the struggle of slaves to be free, is referenced only because the US is divided on gay marriage like we were on slavery and that question had to be solved because a house divided cannot stand. It obviously bothers you that homosexuals see their struggle for rights in the same manner as that of blacks but it could be cast just as easily for Catholics, Jews, Women, etc. It is a fight for rights and in the end the country will come together, some kicking and dragging and screaming is expected. In this case. that means you and people who think as you do for the course is clear, just as it was when we ended slavery. That's all there is.
I believe such disrespect for the [black] civil rights cause fairly and accurately constitutes racism.
Now, if blacks don't have an issue with homosexuals appropriating a quote that was intended for, and made on behalf of their interests and their interests alone, if blacks don't believe that's tantamount to disrespecting them, then you are correct, that wouldn't be racism.
Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.
Yes, this nation was (and perhaps still is in some ways) divided on the black civil rights issue.
And yes, this nation is dividing on the homosexual issue.
My point is that it is not only improper to attempt a parallel between black civil rights and homosexual rights, it's also inordinately disrespectful (imho) of the former. What you have is a group of people attempting to distinguish themselves solely on the basis of their sexual preference and at the same time draw identic parallels with a group distinguished by the color of their skin. I don't believe it's proper to draw such parallels, let alone equate sexual preference with skin color. In fact, I believe it's disrespectful.
Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.
both issues are about equality, civil and equal rights and fighting discrimination.
2.) see above theres no factually or logical bases for such inane failed logic. By the way im black and i dont find it offensive or disrespectful one bit because i see the factual parallels and even if i was offended there NOTHING that would make it racist, the definitions of the word factually does not fit.
3.) im already correct because the facts make it that way, im sure you could find blacks that are offended, i dont know any but you can find people offended about everything but theres no racisim and you still havent showed any facts to support that failed claim, not even one and the very definition of the word will never let you. Its not possible.
but you can keep trying, again let us know when you have ANY FACTS that support your failed post.