Well argued...oops, that certainly was a false statement, sorry.Typical right-wingers playing the race card.
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.
You know as well as I that this writer, Pitts, is not the first to misuse civil rights in the worn out attempt to parlay the good will of that cause upon their far more blighted and ill fated cause.Read his post. That's his opinion, not mine.
I believe that the struggle for equality is always the same. Apparently so does Mr. Pitts.You know as well as I that this writer, Pitts, is not the first to misuse civil rights in the worn out attempt to parlay the good will of that cause upon their far more blighted and ill fated cause.
This practice is part and parcel of the Gay Lobbying effort. Undeniable.
i applaud equality winning over discrimination, the rest of your opinion is moot to the actual subject.
Oh, I rather think the dishonesty and bigotry with an almost juvenile flourish might come from the other end of the spectrum.Only a dishonest bigot would think that there are any fundamental differences in the fight for civil rights here.
Despite the fact some ignorant nomads wrote down in a book 2000 years ago that homosexuality was all icky-poo, that does not mean that people defending their rights are defending something "indefensible". On the contrary. It just means that the bigots who persecute them have nothing to goon other than their thoughtless acceptance of dogma.
NAMBLA is an idea. As long as it stays that, it's legal. And when NAMBLA can't buy a cake, we have the same issue.
Oh, I rather think the dishonesty and bigotry with an almost juvenile flourish might come from the other end of the spectrum.
Most intelligent folk would read your post's positions as being blah blah blah ad hom, blah blah blah ad hom, ad hom... nothing of substance, the end.
Good school, great campus.I was accepted to Stanford University in 1972.
How about you, son?
NAMBLA is an idea. As long as it stays that, it's legal. And when NAMBLA can't buy a cake, we have the same issue.
:applaudI believe that the struggle for equality is always the same. Apparently so does Mr. Pitts.
Oh so you have your red line that you will not cross in regard to sexual discrimination. Well the folks who are members of NAMBLA see nothing wrong with it. So if you find other sexual relationships equal to traditional then who are you to deny them their rights?Do you really lack the capacity to distinguish between preying upon the young and entering into an adult relationship?
University of Central Florida, Universidad de Catolica, Quito, Ecuador, Harvard Grad School, Rollins Graduate Studies...I was accepted to Stanford University in 1972.
How about you, son?
All they have to do is get a few laws changed...we have seen how that worked out for the groups concerned in the past...then start out asking only for "tolerance"...then when that is achieved comes the demand that they get to marry their victims...NAMBLA is an idea. As long as it stays that, it's legal. And when NAMBLA can't buy a cake, we have the same issue.
See my first post (cited above). When the author of that article presumes to cite Abraham Lincoln on behalf of the homosexual cause, he is not only brazenly disrespecting Abraham Lincoln but the very cause for which Mr. Lincoln made that statement. That cause was slavery. Disrespecting the plight of the blacks in this nation for one's own selfish purposes, a purpose which has precisely ZERO in common with blacks and slavery, is blatant racism.
There, does that explain it?
Yeah, that's not likely to happen. Consent is the issue there. I'd drop that one, it's a strawman.All they have to do is get a few laws changed...we have seen how that worked out for the groups concerned in the past...then start out asking only for "tolerance"...then when that is achieved comes the demand that they get to marry their victims...
All they have to do is get a few laws changed...we have seen how that worked out for the groups concerned in the past...then start out asking only for "tolerance"...then when that is achieved comes the demand that they get to marry their victims...
Thanks for jumping the shark.:applaud
I am guessing how we define and what is really at stake in "struggle for equality" and "always the same" vastly differently. But I am guessing you probably agree with animal rights equality with human rights to be the same, always, right?
How about a bugs rights to live in America [ I mean, they would be, if born/hatched in America, be considered Americans, right? ], if we are all equal...should you not say something strident against pest control companies?:thinking
And since we are asking such questions, who here does not seem to really have the "capacity to distinguish between" a normal traditional marriage of one man one woman in the procreating and family creating process, the very integral building blocks upon which this strong nation :usflag2:was founded, and those that would detract from that vital effort :blastem:?Do you really lack the capacity to distinguish between preying upon the young and entering into an adult relationship?
And since we are asking such questions, who here does not seem to really have the "capacity to distinguish between" a normal traditional marriage of one man one woman in the procreating and family creating process, the very integral building blocks upon which this strong nation :usflag2:was founded, and those that would detract from that vital effort :blastem:?
:rock
Oh goodie....a reference to pedophilia.
I'm shocked you left out bestiality though.
You must be slipping.
Here's a thought. Men have been having sex with women since the dawn of time.
It's legal, and accepted. Married or not doesn't matter.
So why isn't it legal for a man to have sex with a little girl?
Because we all have common sense and understand that children can't consent to sex.
So why in blue-blazing hell would the social acceptance of same-sex marriage lead to pedophilia being accepted????????
Short answer. It wouldn't for christ sakes because we are all still rationally intelligent human beings who understand the DIFFERENCE between consenting adults and minors when it comes to sex.
Now take that ridiculously inane slippery-slope feces covered analogy out back and shoot it with something large and powerful.
When you have something more reasonable to add to the debate come back and join in.
Because there's no way around the consent issue. It's the same reason you will never be allowed to marry your cat or your cat's ball of string, no consent is possible.Once upon a time not that long ago homosexuality was viewed in the same light as pedophilia. People saw it as abnormal behavior and morally wrong but today it is presented as the new normal. What makes you think in twenty years NAMBLA won't be seen as the new normal?
Because there's no way around the consent issue. It's the same reason you will never be allowed to marry your cat or your cat's ball of string, no consent is possible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?