• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Where do you see a threat? If you read it "rationally", you'll see that what I said is you are soon going to be very lonely and no one will bother to listen to you. Be rational, for a change.

I did a little editing to help you understand why there was no threat. I don't make threats.
It was probably just my "delusional pap" talking then?
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

I'm not sure what the "detention of racism" is, but quoting a dictionary definition? means very little these days - and you should know that.

Here, if you want some better definitions, that are far more applicable to today's society - try these (some are actually quite good): Urban Dictionary: racist

urban dictionary?
no thanks we will stick to facts while you can stick to fantasy

facts proved you wrong, let us know when you have ANY FACTS that support your failed post.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Moderator's Warning:
folks, there's a topic here. You can discuss it, but the comments directing and posters and basement level one liners need to stop or further action will be taken
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

urban dictionary?
no thanks we will stick to facts while you can stick to fantasy

facts proved you wrong, let us know when you have ANY FACTS that support your failed post.
Fact: The OP cites a quote where Abraham Lincoln gives a landmark speech against slavery in 1858 where he makes this statement: "A house divided against itself cannot stand, I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free."
Fact: That speech was about slavery, the enslavement of blacks by whites and the division that practice threatened in this nation.
Fact: The IRS recently declared that married, homosexual couples could file joint income tax returns.
Fact: Some writer writes an article using the IRS ruling to equate the homosexual rights movement with the civil rights movement, citing Abraham Lincoln out-of-context.
Fact: That's using the the topic of slavery to bolster the topic of homosexual rights.

Fact: That's a form of racism - by applying any of a score of similar uses of the word by those who deem themselves racially discriminated against.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Moderator's Warning:
folks, there's a topic here. You can discuss it, but the comments directing and posters and basement level one liners need to stop or further action will be taken

My apologies. I certainly didn't intend the thread to take this course.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

1.)Fact: The OP cites a quote where Abraham Lincoln gives a landmark speech against slavery in 1858 where he makes this statement: "A house divided against itself cannot stand, I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free."
2.) Fact: That speech was about slavery, the enslavement of blacks by whites and the division that practice threatened in this nation.
3.) Fact: The IRS recently declared that married, homosexual couples could file joint income tax returns.
4.) Fact: Some writer writes an article using the IRS ruling to equate the homosexual rights movement with the civil rights movement, citing Abraham Lincoln out-of-context.
5.) Fact: That's using the the topic of slavery to bolster the topic of homosexual rights.
6.) Fact: That's a form of racism - by applying any of a score of similar uses of the word by those who deem themselves racially discriminated against.

1.) yes this is a fact. Does it support your failed post about racism though? nope
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
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Fact: The OP cites a quote where Abraham Lincoln gives a landmark speech against slavery in 1858 where he makes this statement: "A house divided against itself cannot stand, I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free."
Fact: That speech was about slavery, the enslavement of blacks by whites and the division that practice threatened in this nation.
Fact: The IRS recently declared that married, homosexual couples could file joint income tax returns.
Fact: Some writer writes an article using the IRS ruling to equate the homosexual rights movement with the civil rights movement, citing Abraham Lincoln out-of-context.
Fact: That's using the the topic of slavery to bolster the topic of homosexual rights.

Fact: That's a form of racism - by applying any of a score of similar uses of the word by those who deem themselves racially discriminated against.
Now that's better but let's look at the end of the article, what the writer actually says:

"...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.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

1.) yes this is a fact. Does it support your failed post about racism though? nope
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
As I stated in my original post, I believe that the homosexual lobby presuming to use that quote by Abraham Lincoln, which you acknowledge was about the specific issue of slavery, a black issue, a black civil rights issue, that their misappropriation of that quote and use of it out of context shows extreme disrespect to both Abraham Lincoln AND to the civil rights lobby.

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.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

As I stated in my original post, I believe that the homosexual lobby presuming to use that quote by Abraham Lincoln, which you acknowledge was about the specific issue of slavery, a black issue, a black civil rights issue, that their misappropriation of that quote and use of it out of context shows extreme disrespect to both Abraham Lincoln AND to the civil rights lobby.

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.
Homosexual Lobby? Do you think they have an office in Washington that this writer works for???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Pitts

Leonard+Pitts,+Jr.JPG
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

...only Abraham Lincoln wasn't talking about homosexuals, let alone homosexual "rights," LET ALONE homosexual marriage.

You're right, he was saying either the United States was going to outlaw slavery everywhere or allow slavery everywhere. Lincoln held the unity of the Union supreme over everything else, even the freedom of the slaves. Quoting Lincoln on a subject where personal freedom is given supremacy is not appropriate.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

< Snipped for brevity - see original above >

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 understand and acknowledge that the author is drawing a parallel between the black civil rights movement and today's homosexual rights movement. That's clear, but that's also my point.

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.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

I'm saying homosexuals attempting to steal a moment in history important to blacks is racism. That's no lie. It's fact.

Nobody's trying to steal anything. It's entirely appropriate to refer to other moments in American history where the rights of one human being were less than the rights of another human being when speaking about the civil rights of homosexual folks today. The problem isn't the comparison, it's that the quote referenced wasn't appropriate given Lincoln's positions on civil rights.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

As I stated in my original post, I believe that the homosexual lobby presuming to use that quote by Abraham Lincoln, which you acknowledge was about the specific issue of slavery, a black issue, a black civil rights issue, that their misappropriation of that quote and use of it out of context shows extreme disrespect to both Abraham Lincoln AND to the civil rights lobby.

2.)I believe such disrespect for the [black] civil rights cause fairly and accurately constitutes racism.

3.)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.

1.) you are free to have that illogical unsupportable opinion but you have no facts to support it
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.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Homosexual Lobby? Do you think they have an office in Washington that this writer works for???

Leonard Pitts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leonard+Pitts,+Jr.JPG

wow lenoard pitts is also black?

wow talk about a failed post, that post couldnt get any more destroyed, that has to be one of the biggest failed posts of the year
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

You're right, he was saying either the United States was going to outlaw slavery everywhere or allow slavery everywhere. Lincoln held the unity of the Union supreme over everything else, even the freedom of the slaves. Quoting Lincoln on a subject where personal freedom is given supremacy is not appropriate.

An excellent point. Thank you.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

wow lenoard pitts is also black?

wow talk about a failed post, that post couldnt get any more destroyed, that has to be one of the biggest failed posts of the year
:doh Is he homosexual too?

Regardless, that's not the point. Do you think it impossible for a black man to be able to disrespect the black civil rights cause?
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

:doh Is he homosexual too?
2.) Regardless, that's not the point. Do you think it impossible for a black man to be able to disrespect the black civil rights cause?

1.) nope nor does he have to be, thanks for the meaningless point
2.) im sure, as a matter of fact he could disrespect it all he wants but guess what, it will never be racists and your failed claim is still factually wrong.

at this point just admit its not and cant be "racist" until the definition of the word magically changes you claim is false and impossible.
Its no big deal, you misspoke and made a mistake. It makes a good poster to admit it, can you?

as always let us know if oyu have any facts to support your claim we'd love to read them
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

:doh Is he homosexual too?

Do you think it impossible for a black man to be able to disrespect the black civil rights cause?

No, but when a black man honors the cause by applying the same principles to others, only to be attacked for it by those with hateful agendas, you can sure bet that the attackers don't give a rat's ass about civil rights and are are only indulging in dishonest turnspeak so to further their agenda.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

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.
Even if black folk do not have a problem with it, and I am sure there are plenty that do, I, a white person do have a problem with it. Civil Rights is not only a black issue that only black people have allegiance to, it was for all America. That being said it does not mean that any and every group can appropriate a civil rights stance appropriately... as discrimination on skin color, something one is assured that individuals have no control over, would surely be much different from a sexual preference that one plausibly does have some control over. The majority that has set the rules in this country still want marriage to be traditional. 37 states and Puerto Rico either have a state constitutional ban on any other that traditional marriage or by statute declare/define legal marriage as to be one man one woman. To force states that do not go along with what many would call deviance would be what could not be considered to constitute civil rights, that would put it into the realm of special rights. That should be a state's right to decide, not the federal government.


Homosexual Lobby? Do you think they have an office in Washington that this writer works for???

Leonard Pitts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What does Pitts have to do with anything? You think because someone pens an article they must be part of the lobbying group? That is just plain ludicrous. The fact is that there are Gay Lobbyists.

Lobbying | Define Lobbying at Dictionary.com Defintion of to Lobby [first two deal with the room, lobby ]: 3. a group of persons who work or conduct a campaign to influence members of a legislature to vote according to the group's special interest. 4. to solicit or try to influence the votes of members of a legislative body.
5. to try to influence the actions of (public officials, especially legislators). 6. to urge or procure the passage of (a bill), by lobbying.

Lobbying - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Lobbying (also lobby) is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in the government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies. Lobbying is done by many different types of people and organized groups, including individuals in the private sector, corporations, fellow legislators or government officials, or advocacy groups (interest groups).

So most certainly there is a Gay Lobby, many of them actually.

Check here for a list in Wikipedia : List of LGBT rights organizations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Much like a three year old might try to explain quantum physics, yes.
I think it would be more along the lines of a physicist trying to explain something somewhat complex to a three year old...I certainly understood, didn't most of you out there?
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

What does Pitts have to do with anything? You think because someone pens an article they must be part of the lobbying group? That is just plain ludicrous.
Read his post. That's his opinion, not mine.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Typical right-wingers playing the race card.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

No, but when a black man honors the cause by applying the same principles to others, only to be attacked for it by those with hateful agendas, you can sure bet that the attackers don't give a rat's ass about civil rights and are are only indulging in dishonest turnspeak so to further their agenda.
On the contrary, I would suspect that the writer was mostly concerned about indulging dishonest turnspeak to further his agenda... and while he might not be using it, others here are using his skin color to deflect criticism of something that they cannot defend straight up [ no pun intended ].

As Edwin correctly states, using, misappropriating, the cause of Civil Rights to apply to Gay Rights in the form of same sex marriage is an abomination and not only a slight to Lincoln but also to Dr. Martin Luther King and all the others that worked so magnanimously in this country for real Civil Rights, not for faux civil rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom