• 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!

NOM’s July 4th message: Are you LGBT or are you American? [W:45]

Not the same thing, but the anti-SSM will be looked at the same way 40 years from now as those against interracial marriage.

The African American community should be outraged by that. It is belittling of what they righteously fought for.
 
Gee, I wonder why the NAACP has come out in favour of same sex marriage if the African American community is so "outraged"

First, I didn't say they are outraged, I said they should be. Second, the NAACP is a joke and hardly speaks for the whole black community.
 
The African American community should be outraged by that. It is belittling of what they righteously fought for.

Why? Discrimination is discrimination no matter skin color, sexual orientation, religious choice, etc.
 
The African American community should be outraged by that. It is belittling of what they righteously fought for.

why should they be outraged by anti-SSM looking ridiculous like those against interacial marriage? It's not the same thing, but the same outcome.
 
why should they be outraged by anti-SSM looking ridiculous like those against interacial marriage? It's not the same thing, but the same outcome.

My point is that people compare it to the civil rights movement, and it is nothing like the civil rights movement.
 
Because gays totally endured the level of hardships as American blacks.

In some ways, they endured worse. Gays had to hide who they were from society or face involuntary institutionalization and/or imprisonment. And during this institutionalization, they had to endure everything from castration to lobotomies. The fact that much of this has been lost to history and isn't being brought up in the fight for gay rights (because it really has little to do with the rights being fought for right now) doesn't change the fact that these things did happen.

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/172/d/1/the_torture_of_homosexuals_by_inspiredcreativity-d3ji16w.pdf

DavidMixner.com - Live From Hell's Kitchen

People are still losing their jobs for being gay, whereas not only has it been illegal for this to happen to people due to race for over 50 years now, but it is even illegal for a person to lose their job for the race of their spouse, but not the sex/gender of their spouse.

5 People Who Were Fired for Being Gay, and the 29 States Where That is Still Legal

There are still some people trying to get off of sex offender lists just for being gay.

Sex Offender Databases: Getting Your Name Off If Your Acts Are Now Legal | Nolo.com
 
My point is that people compare it to the civil rights movement, and it is nothing like the civil rights movement.

Well, that's not my point. My point is that the anti-SSM are going to look ridiculous in later years just like those against interracial marriages are today.

They aren't the same thing, but there are similiarities. That's not making them out to be the same. Things can be different but have similiarites to them.
 
Well, that's not my point. My point is that the anti-SSM are going to look ridiculous in later years just like those against interracial marriages are today.

They aren't the same thing, but there are similiarities. That's not making them out to be the same. Things can be different but have similiarites to them.

It's also ridiculous that we will look ridiculous. It should be the people that want men to have sex with men and women to have sex with women that look ridiculous.
 
Not even close.

Except for the fact that they, unlike blacks, had the option of concealing their homosexuality. Their oppression was not even close to what the blacks faced in severity or volume. The comparison is false, and insulting. They need to illustrate their own strifes, and make posters and memes specific to their own struggles, instead of constantly jumping on the coat tails of the black community.

So if someone had only "a drop" of black blood in them, and looked white, they should have hidden that, no matter how much they personally didn't have an issue with black people just to avoid persecution and being treated differently? Should those of certain faiths be expected to hide what their faith is because they can hide that easily to avoid persecution that is like that faced by a person based on their race?

And yes, being involuntarily institutionalized and imprisoned for being who you are is at least just as bad as facing harsher treatments in public and less rights for who you are. Whether a trait can be hidden or not, doesn't change the fact that people were still persecuted for those traits when they were discovered.
 
Last edited:
The NAACP's support for gay marriage in no way equates the plight of Blacks during the civil rights era and the plight of homosexuals in gaining marriage rights. What people are attempting to do with this is to say that what the gay community is fighting for today akin to what Black people were fighting for in the 60s. The right to marry vs. equal protection under the law. Hmm... one has to do with oppression and the other has to do with getting some tax breaks.

Give me a freaking break. The two aren't even remotely on the same level.

They both have to do with oppression. Many of those looking to be recognized as married will get no actual tax breaks, and some will in fact owe more money to the government due to their marriage.
 
According to the Wiktionary

Verb
tolerate (third-person singular simple present tolerates, present participle tolerating, simple past and past participle tolerated)

  1. To allow (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) to exist or occur without interference.

If you say that you are unwilling to tolerate a particular belief, then that means that you are not willing to allow this belief to be expressed without interference. To interfere with one's right to express a belief that you do not want to be expressed meets the definition of censorship. To tolerate something is to allow that thing to exist or occur, even if you do not like it. This is what you said you were unwilling to do.

By that definition, there'd be no "Debate Politics." Wouldn't you have to "tolerate" what Obama says without disagreeing? Disagreeing with someone is very American. I can "tolerate" what you say, and still disagree. It is in fact, my right to say that I disagree, and you have to tolerate that.
 
In some ways, they endured worse.
I disagree.

Gays had to hide who they were from society or face involuntary institutionalization and/or imprisonment. And during this institutionalization, they had to endure everything from castration to lobotomies. The fact that much of this has been lost to history and isn't being brought up in the fight for gay rights (because it really has little to do with the rights being fought for right now) doesn't change the fact that these things did happen.
At least they had the ability to hide, and give me a break on that involuntary institutionalization bit. You think the blacks volunteered to be purchased for use as farm equipment for 260 years? They endured the same treatment as cattle, including castration. Not only that, but if you were born to a mother who was a slave, that made you a slave by default, thanks to George Washington's temper tantrum over one of his slaves running away. There was nowhere to run, and no possible way to hide, since federal law mandated that runaway slaves must be returned to their owners upon recovery. What followed for a runaway after being returned was usually something unspeakable. The hotbox, hobbling, whipping, various torture techniques, extremely hard labor, deprivation of food and water, etc. Sometimes they'd just hang the runaway, and leave the carcass on the rope to serve as a visual warning for the other slaves.

People are still losing their jobs for being gay, whereas not only has it been illegal for this to happen to people due to race for over 50 years now, but it is even illegal for a person to lose their job for the race of their spouse, but not the sex/gender of their spouse.


Small potatoes.

There are still some people trying to get off of sex offender lists just for being gay.


Which isn't exclusive to homosexuals.
 
I disagree.


At least they had the ability to hide, and give me a break on that involuntary institutionalization bit. You think the blacks volunteered to be purchased for use as farm equipment for 260 years? They endured the same treatment as cattle, including castration. Not only that, but if you were born to a mother who was a slave, that made you a slave by default, thanks to George Washington's temper tantrum over one of his slaves running away. There was nowhere to run, and no possible way to hide, since federal law mandated that runaway slaves must be returned to their owners upon recovery. What followed for a runaway after being returned was usually something unspeakable. The hotbox, hobbling, whipping, various torture techniques, extremely hard labor, deprivation of food and water, etc. Sometimes they'd just hang the runaway, and leave the carcass on the rope to serve as a visual warning for the other slaves.

Small potatoes.

Which isn't exclusive to homosexuals.

And being institutionalized or being sold into slavery are both wrong. So don't pretend that one is absolutely worse than the other. They are both horrible. And they both happened. Plus, if homosexuals were found out in the time when slaves were being sold in America, they were either executed or castrated. Pretty sure that is at least as bad as slavery.

In this day and age, it is not "small potatoes". We are supposed to be improving ourselves, not allowing laws to continue to discriminate just because some believe that homosexuals "didn't have it as bad as blacks" did in the past.

No, it isn't. But they are the only group that has people on there for simply being who they are, not just doing something that is considered "sexual".
 
So if someone had only "a drop" of black blood in them, and looked white, they should have hidden that, no matter how much they personally didn't have an issue with black people just to avoid persecution and being treated differently?
I would. It would probably keep my hands from being tied to the hitch of a truck by Billy Backwoods, leaving the DPS the task of cleaning a three mile long blood smear off of the road.

Should those of certain faiths be expected to hide what their faith is because they can hide that easily to avoid persecution that is like that faced by a person based on their race?
You mean the faiths that facilitated the persecution and murder of "witches", heathens, heretics, homosexuals, Jews, blacks, gypsies, Pollocks, members of the wrong sect or religion, etc? They can cry me a river.

And yes, being involuntarily institutionalized and imprisoned for being who you are is at least just as bad as facing harsher treatments in public and less rights for who you are. Whether a trait can be hidden or not, doesn't change the fact that people were still persecuted for those traits when they were discovered.
Except blacks didn't go to jail back then, there was no release or pardon. Their term was permanent. If you run away, you get sent back where you're either tortured or murdered. After emancipation, they were killed on the spot, or black-bagged and hung from a tree in the middle of a rally. Gays did not endure the same hardships as the blacks. There is no valid comparison to be made.
 
And being institutionalized or being sold into slavery are both wrong. So don't pretend that one is absolutely worse than the other. They are both horrible. And they both happened. Plus, if homosexuals were found out in the time when slaves were being sold in America, they were either executed or castrated. Pretty sure that is at least as bad as slavery.
One is absolutely worst than the other. Have you ever been locked up? You don't have to do **** except sit on your ass and not cause trouble. Free food, free clothing, they do your laundry for you, and as long as you don't piss off the wrong people, it's a ****ing vacation.


In this day and age, it is not "small potatoes". We are supposed to be improving ourselves, not allowing laws to continue to discriminate just because some believe that homosexuals "didn't have it as bad as blacks" did in the past.
Actually, they discriminate because of religious and traditional beliefs that view homosexuality as being morally wrong. Thinly veiled ad homs aren't an argument.

No, it isn't. But they are the only group that has people on there for simply being who they are, not just doing something that is considered "sexual".
That's a crap argument and you know it. They were convicted for the sexual act of sodomy, which was a stupid law. Just like putting a 17 year old kid in jail for having sex with a 16 year old girl is stupid. That kid was just being who he is, no different than the gay, or the drunk guy who lost his pants.
 
I was saying that it is ridiculous, though I know it will probably be reality as America's morality descends even further.

While the plights are completely different, the same thing was said about interracial marriage. Hell even to this day my Uncle says the same thing about interracial marriage that it is immoral.

I think you are on the wrong side of history, but that is just my opinion.
 
Read more @: NOM’s July 4th message: Are you LGBT or are you American? | The Raw Story

Ohhh silly hate groups.. [/FONT][/COLOR]They will be on the wrong side of history..
dwzww3.jpg

You know, I bet if we took the same money, benefits and tax breaks away from married couples who don't have children this whole homosexual marriage thing would completely fall apart. It is not about "rights" it's about greed, plain and simple. If there were no monetary/benefit gains, there wouldn't be enough people that actually give a damn to fill a Ford Pinto.
 
They both have to do with oppression. Many of those looking to be recognized as married will get no actual tax breaks, and some will in fact owe more money to the government due to their marriage.
I'll say this again. Marriage rights are not on the same level as civil rights. You can call it oppression or you can call it discrimination and if packaged and presented in the right way both terms are applicable. But what you can't do is to claim that the two movements are anywhere near the same in terms of the hardship endured or the historical significance that each represent.

People are actually "going there" and it's a freaking joke.
 
You know, I bet if we took the same money, benefits and tax breaks away from married couples who don't have children this whole homosexual marriage thing would completely fall apart. It is not about "rights" it's about greed, plain and simple. If there were no monetary/benefit gains, there wouldn't be enough people that actually give a damn to fill a Ford Pinto.

Fine, but to do that, you would have to get most of the greedy straight people to agree to it. Hmmmmm wonder why that hasn't been done? Oh yeah, because they are greedy.
 
I'll say this again. Marriage rights are not on the same level as civil rights. You can call it oppression or you can call it discrimination and if packaged and presented in the right way both terms are applicable. But what you can't do is to claim that the two movements are anywhere near the same in terms of the hardship endured or the historical significance that each represent.

People are actually "going there" and it's a freaking joke.

I agree you can't compare the two in terms of hardship, but I disagree on the historical significance. Historically, it will be of great significance.
 
Back
Top Bottom