is just a way of saying "gay marriage" as opposed to "hetero-marriage"
and refusing to allow people to simply say "Marriage"
some how it is like saying "Gay Love" as opposed to "Straight love" . . . simply so that you can claim superiority or correctness if you are the latter . . .
But Love is love
(sex is not love though it sure is great when it is SexLove . . . and the love of sex is good too)
Well, there were the drinking fountains. Now, I'm sure that the drinking fountains for whites were cleaned more often than the ones for blacks. But there were probably some that were basically the same. From pictures I've seen it looks like they were right next to each other. It was just a division based entirely on race, but there was little or no difference in quality.
Making gays accept "Marriage For Gays" aka Civil Unions is a case of separate but equal treatment if ever there was one.
Here is the sentence conservatives need to understand:
The same-sex marriage movement is rolling. It will not be stopped.
Let it go, Religious Right, let it go. You lost it. Just like you lost the battle of interracial marriage, you are losing this one. It is over. Let it go. Move on.
For all the bluster about the "Christian foundations" of America (total bullshit) when the rubber hits the road this country is about freedom, not Jesus.
Here is the sentence conservatives need to understand:
The same-sex marriage movement is rolling. It will not be stopped.
Let it go, Religious Right, let it go. You lost it. Just like you lost the battle of interracial marriage, you are losing this one. It is over. Let it go. Move on.
For all the bluster about the "Christian foundations" of America (total bullshit) when the rubber hits the road this country is about freedom, not Jesus.
Grove, your bigotry gets tiring. I suppose Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't "religious" at all. Nor did he ever evoke Jesus in his teaching or his reasoning.
Religion in many ways is the foundation of civil rights. Who has rights if we are all just worm food fighting to see who gets to decompose last.
Oh and before we start complaining that King as a Democrat, let us remember all the religious imagery and invocations of Lincoln, the original Republican as well.
Grove, your bigotry gets tiring. I suppose Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't "religious" at all. Nor did he ever evoke Jesus in his teaching or his reasoning.
Religion in many ways is the foundation of civil rights. Who has rights if we are all just worm food fighting to see who gets to decompose last.
Oh and before we start complaining that King as a Democrat, let us remember all the religious imagery and invocations of Lincoln, the original Republican as well.
Nick
Yes, Martin Luther King was religious. That the civil rights activist Dr Martin Luther King was a Christian is incontestable. I've seen him on the TV. And yes, I saw him talk about Jesus.
And I still don't understand how you intended your post to be a reply to Groverat's (apart from the 'religion in many ways...' bit which actually has some merit but is still irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is the intolerance of Christian fundamentalists.)
And I also love the way you that you accuse the man railing against intolerance of being a bigot. It's been days since I've seen you pull 'I know you are but what am I?'. Classic stuff, Nick. Keep it up.
Yes, Martin Luther King was religious. That the civil rights activist Dr Martin Luther King was a Christian is incontestable. I've seen him on the TV. And yes, I saw him talk about Jesus.
And I still don't understand how you intended your post to be a reply to Groverat's (apart from the 'religion in many ways...' bit which actually has some merit but is still irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is the intolerance of Christian fundamentalists.)
And I also love the way you that you accuse the man railing against intolerance of being a bigot. It's been days since I've seen you pull 'I know you are but what am I?'. Classic stuff, Nick. Keep it up.
It is terrible that you judge so quickly yet, complain openly that you don't understand my reply. Perhaps you should only judge that which you understand.
Grove and many others here are bigots. They are intolerant of those who either are religious, or have religious views different from their own. They don't discuss the differences. They broadly paint them in hateful terms that alienate more than they seek to understand. If you can't understand that and thus find it humorous, that is your own limitation.
It is terrible that you judge so quickly yet, complain openly that you don't understand my reply. Perhaps you should only judge that which you understand.
Grove and many others here are bigots. They are intolerant of those who either are religious, or have religious views different from their own. They don't discuss the differences. They broadly paint them in hateful terms that alienate more than they seek to understand. If you can't understand that and thus find it humorous, that is your own limitation.
Nick
Martin Luther King probably had different ideas than your own . . . he wrote his PHD Dis on Keirkegaard
Keirkegaard wrote a great book called Attack Upon Christendom
Kierkegaard was a Christian but he mocked Christianity as practiced institutionally
I wonder if he were to post here if you would call him a bigot?
Grove and many others here are bigots. They are intolerant of those who either are religious, or have religious views different from their own.
But Groverat isn't a bigot. He objects to intolerant religious people, yes, but I"ve never seen him rail against Christians per se, or against followers of any other religion.
On the contrary, I remember him defending the Qu'ran over a ten-page, two-man thread where a right wing Christian fundamentalist, Noah J, was arguing that Islam was 'evil' and the Qu'ran was an 'evil' book, a thread that earned him my everlasting respect. This isn't the behaviour of a bigot.
The intolerant poster in that thread, as in this, happens to be a Christian.
Martin Luther King probably had different ideas than your own . . . he wrote his PHD Dis on Keirkegaard
Keirkegaard wrote a great book called Attack Upon Christendom
Kierkegaard was a Christian but he mocked Christianity as practiced institutionally
I wonder if he were to post here if you would call him a bigot?
Would I call Martin Luther King a bigot? I think that is quite a logical leap. I've in no way claimed that someone cannot criticize an institution, be it religious or otherwise. I've called those who use phrases like Christian, Religious Right, etc and associate them with negative actions like exclusively opposing interacial marriage when that is far from true. The right was founded and came to power in part because of a split in the Democrats regarding slavery and ending it. There is a long history of religious individuals on both the right and left working for civil rights. Disagreeing on what the definition of marriage does not mean someone should go and start associating hate/racism exclusively with one group. That is what Grove did.
I suppose I should just start claiming that the MAJORITY of Democrats who oppose homosexual unions being called marriage, including John Kerry just want to take us back to the days of George Wallace and should be wearing hoods while burning crosses.
Grove objected when Texans were painted broadly, I objected when religious folks are painted broadly as well.
But Groverat isn't a bigot. He objects to intolerant religious people, yes, but I"ve never seen him rail against Christians per se, or against followers of any other religion.
On the contrary, I remember him defending the Qu'ran over a ten-page, two-man thread where a right wing Christian fundamentalist, Noah J, was arguing that Islam was 'evil' and the Qu'ran was an 'evil' book, a thread that earned him my everlasting respect. This isn't the behaviour of a bigot.
The intolerant poster in that thread, as in this, happens to be a Christian.
Listen here Mr Judgemental. I assure you that there are areas of social policy where my circle of tolerance is larger than yours. There are areas where we are all less tolerant than others. That is the nature of ideas and discussion. When you give up on the ideas and just start calling people names, or associating them exclusively with hate when it is not so, I call that bigotry.
Bottom line is that there is no bigger issue for conservatives than the constitutional ammendment to discriminate against a minority group in this country. Karl Rove has assured the Republican base that the president will soon reveal his plans to support the discrimination ammendment. Not only does the president want to put a halt to gay marriage, but he also intends to put a stop to civil unions as well.
Many conservatives argue that the majority of American's do not support gay marriage (though many do support civil unions). However, I propose this:
Fill in the blank.
In 1958, nine years before the Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that miscegenation laws were unconstitutional, Gallup polled people about interracial marriages.
_____% of Whites opposed them.
No cheating.
...and the winner is... 94%! (it's also frequently reported as 96%. I think 94% is the right number).
It isn't clear if this is just personal disapproval or support for legal restrictions. I believe Atrios put it in correct perspective though.
Would I call Martin Luther King a bigot? I think that is quite a logical leap. I've in no way claimed that someone cannot criticize an institution, be it religious or otherwise. I[ . . .EXCISED blah blah . . . ]
Nick
Let's follow my paragraph:
MLK wrote of K. end of MLK
K wrote etc
K thought etc but he was an etc and etc
I wonder if (______fill in the blank most likely being referred to left by the missing he) were to post here etc
I wouldn't bother if this weren't such a prime example of your ability to misread the obviouse, but it does seem pretty clear that the he being referred to is K . . .
It is you who, in the simple act of reading comprehension, make "leaps of logic"
Let it go, Religious Right, let it go. You lost it. Just like you lost the battle of interracial marriage, you are losing this one. It is over. Let it go. Move on.
For all the bluster about the "Christian foundations" of America (total bullshit) when the rubber hits the road this country is about freedom, not Jesus.
I wasn't aware that Christians fought a battle over interracial marriage. Care to say when?
I am aware that many misguided people didn't like the idea. Some of those were Christians, and would naturally scour the Good Book for passages that supported that view. Others backed up their beliefs from whatever worldview they happened to hold.
Anything they tried to quote from the Bible was always very weak theologically.
I may have missed it, but I don't think you've addressed the issue of separate but equal. I would like to know your opinion since we've had discussions across many threads and you're one of if not the strongest voice against gay marriage.
Obviously we disagree, but I would think that we both agree in principle that 'separate but equal' is not good enough for the United States. We have a higher standard that the country is held to (the Constitution.)
I guess my question is in several parts.
1) don't you agree that the country shouldn't support 'separate but equal'?
2) doesn't the marriage/civil union issue fall within the bounds of 'separate but equal'? <-- I'm open to interpretation on this one.
2a) if it is 'separate but equal' how can you support it?
2b) if it isn't 'separate but equal' I'll reevaluate.
I wasn't aware that Christians fought a battle over interracial marriage. Care to say when?
Remember Bob Jones University, and the criticism it received when Bush gave a talk there? Part of it was because they didn't think banning interracial marriage went far enough, they had a ban on interracial dating. After all the controversy over Bush, they dropped the ban. That was just a few years ago.
"We're being defined as a racist school. That's all the media is talking about," he said, adding that "we don't hate Catholics, we love Catholics."
Jones said the university first implemented the dating ban more than five decades ago, "because we were trying ... to enforce something, a principle, that is much greater than this. We stand against the one world government, against the coming world of the antichrist."
"The principle upon which it was based is very important, but the rule is not. So we did away with it," he said.
"We realize that an interracial marriage is not going to bring in the world of antichrist by any means."
So interracial marriage is NOT going to bring the antichrist. Whew.
Comments
is just a way of saying "gay marriage" as opposed to "hetero-marriage"
and refusing to allow people to simply say "Marriage"
some how it is like saying "Gay Love" as opposed to "Straight love" . . . simply so that you can claim superiority or correctness if you are the latter . . .
But Love is love
(sex is not love though it sure is great when it is SexLove . . . and the love of sex is good too)
Making gays accept "Marriage For Gays" aka Civil Unions is a case of separate but equal treatment if ever there was one.
the linky
coming up on 3000 couples...impressive
g
Here is the sentence conservatives need to understand:
The same-sex marriage movement is rolling. It will not be stopped.
Let it go, Religious Right, let it go. You lost it. Just like you lost the battle of interracial marriage, you are losing this one. It is over. Let it go. Move on.
For all the bluster about the "Christian foundations" of America (total bullshit) when the rubber hits the road this country is about freedom, not Jesus.
Originally posted by groverat
Good article.
Here is the sentence conservatives need to understand:
The same-sex marriage movement is rolling. It will not be stopped.
Let it go, Religious Right, let it go. You lost it. Just like you lost the battle of interracial marriage, you are losing this one. It is over. Let it go. Move on.
For all the bluster about the "Christian foundations" of America (total bullshit) when the rubber hits the road this country is about freedom, not Jesus.
Grove, your bigotry gets tiring. I suppose Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't "religious" at all. Nor did he ever evoke Jesus in his teaching or his reasoning.
Religion in many ways is the foundation of civil rights. Who has rights if we are all just worm food fighting to see who gets to decompose last.
Oh and before we start complaining that King as a Democrat, let us remember all the religious imagery and invocations of Lincoln, the original Republican as well.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Grove, your bigotry gets tiring. I suppose Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't "religious" at all. Nor did he ever evoke Jesus in his teaching or his reasoning.
Religion in many ways is the foundation of civil rights. Who has rights if we are all just worm food fighting to see who gets to decompose last.
Oh and before we start complaining that King as a Democrat, let us remember all the religious imagery and invocations of Lincoln, the original Republican as well.
Nick
Yes, Martin Luther King was religious. That the civil rights activist Dr Martin Luther King was a Christian is incontestable. I've seen him on the TV. And yes, I saw him talk about Jesus.
And I still don't understand how you intended your post to be a reply to Groverat's (apart from the 'religion in many ways...' bit which actually has some merit but is still irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is the intolerance of Christian fundamentalists.)
And I also love the way you that you accuse the man railing against intolerance of being a bigot. It's been days since I've seen you pull 'I know you are but what am I?'. Classic stuff, Nick. Keep it up.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Yes, Martin Luther King was religious. That the civil rights activist Dr Martin Luther King was a Christian is incontestable. I've seen him on the TV. And yes, I saw him talk about Jesus.
And I still don't understand how you intended your post to be a reply to Groverat's (apart from the 'religion in many ways...' bit which actually has some merit but is still irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is the intolerance of Christian fundamentalists.)
And I also love the way you that you accuse the man railing against intolerance of being a bigot. It's been days since I've seen you pull 'I know you are but what am I?'. Classic stuff, Nick. Keep it up.
It is terrible that you judge so quickly yet, complain openly that you don't understand my reply. Perhaps you should only judge that which you understand.
Grove and many others here are bigots. They are intolerant of those who either are religious, or have religious views different from their own. They don't discuss the differences. They broadly paint them in hateful terms that alienate more than they seek to understand. If you can't understand that and thus find it humorous, that is your own limitation.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
It is terrible that you judge so quickly yet, complain openly that you don't understand my reply. Perhaps you should only judge that which you understand.
Grove and many others here are bigots. They are intolerant of those who either are religious, or have religious views different from their own. They don't discuss the differences. They broadly paint them in hateful terms that alienate more than they seek to understand. If you can't understand that and thus find it humorous, that is your own limitation.
Nick
Martin Luther King probably had different ideas than your own . . . he wrote his PHD Dis on Keirkegaard
Keirkegaard wrote a great book called Attack Upon Christendom
Kierkegaard was a Christian but he mocked Christianity as practiced institutionally
I wonder if he were to post here if you would call him a bigot?
Originally posted by trumptman
Grove and many others here are bigots. They are intolerant of those who either are religious, or have religious views different from their own.
But Groverat isn't a bigot. He objects to intolerant religious people, yes, but I"ve never seen him rail against Christians per se, or against followers of any other religion.
On the contrary, I remember him defending the Qu'ran over a ten-page, two-man thread where a right wing Christian fundamentalist, Noah J, was arguing that Islam was 'evil' and the Qu'ran was an 'evil' book, a thread that earned him my everlasting respect. This isn't the behaviour of a bigot.
The intolerant poster in that thread, as in this, happens to be a Christian.
Originally posted by pfflam
Martin Luther King probably had different ideas than your own . . . he wrote his PHD Dis on Keirkegaard
Keirkegaard wrote a great book called Attack Upon Christendom
Kierkegaard was a Christian but he mocked Christianity as practiced institutionally
I wonder if he were to post here if you would call him a bigot?
Would I call Martin Luther King a bigot? I think that is quite a logical leap. I've in no way claimed that someone cannot criticize an institution, be it religious or otherwise. I've called those who use phrases like Christian, Religious Right, etc and associate them with negative actions like exclusively opposing interacial marriage when that is far from true. The right was founded and came to power in part because of a split in the Democrats regarding slavery and ending it. There is a long history of religious individuals on both the right and left working for civil rights. Disagreeing on what the definition of marriage does not mean someone should go and start associating hate/racism exclusively with one group. That is what Grove did.
I suppose I should just start claiming that the MAJORITY of Democrats who oppose homosexual unions being called marriage, including John Kerry just want to take us back to the days of George Wallace and should be wearing hoods while burning crosses.
Grove objected when Texans were painted broadly, I objected when religious folks are painted broadly as well.
Nick
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
But Groverat isn't a bigot. He objects to intolerant religious people, yes, but I"ve never seen him rail against Christians per se, or against followers of any other religion.
On the contrary, I remember him defending the Qu'ran over a ten-page, two-man thread where a right wing Christian fundamentalist, Noah J, was arguing that Islam was 'evil' and the Qu'ran was an 'evil' book, a thread that earned him my everlasting respect. This isn't the behaviour of a bigot.
The intolerant poster in that thread, as in this, happens to be a Christian.
Listen here Mr Judgemental. I assure you that there are areas of social policy where my circle of tolerance is larger than yours. There are areas where we are all less tolerant than others. That is the nature of ideas and discussion. When you give up on the ideas and just start calling people names, or associating them exclusively with hate when it is not so, I call that bigotry.
Nick
Bottom line is that there is no bigger issue for conservatives than the constitutional ammendment to discriminate against a minority group in this country. Karl Rove has assured the Republican base that the president will soon reveal his plans to support the discrimination ammendment. Not only does the president want to put a halt to gay marriage, but he also intends to put a stop to civil unions as well.
Many conservatives argue that the majority of American's do not support gay marriage (though many do support civil unions). However, I propose this:
Fill in the blank.
In 1958, nine years before the Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that miscegenation laws were unconstitutional, Gallup polled people about interracial marriages.
_____% of Whites opposed them.
No cheating.
...and the winner is... 94%! (it's also frequently reported as 96%. I think 94% is the right number).
It isn't clear if this is just personal disapproval or support for legal restrictions. I believe Atrios put it in correct perspective though.
Originally posted by trumptman
Would I call Martin Luther King a bigot? I think that is quite a logical leap. I've in no way claimed that someone cannot criticize an institution, be it religious or otherwise. I[ . . .EXCISED blah blah . . . ]
Nick
Let's follow my paragraph:
MLK wrote of K. end of MLK
K wrote etc
K thought etc but he was an etc and etc
I wonder if (______fill in the blank most likely being referred to left by the missing he) were to post here etc
I wouldn't bother if this weren't such a prime example of your ability to misread the obviouse, but it does seem pretty clear that the he being referred to is K . . .
It is you who, in the simple act of reading comprehension, make "leaps of logic"
These people have just ruined my marriage.
From Atrios.
Originally posted by groverat
Let it go, Religious Right, let it go. You lost it. Just like you lost the battle of interracial marriage, you are losing this one. It is over. Let it go. Move on.
For all the bluster about the "Christian foundations" of America (total bullshit) when the rubber hits the road this country is about freedom, not Jesus.
I wasn't aware that Christians fought a battle over interracial marriage. Care to say when?
I am aware that many misguided people didn't like the idea. Some of those were Christians, and would naturally scour the Good Book for passages that supported that view. Others backed up their beliefs from whatever worldview they happened to hold.
Anything they tried to quote from the Bible was always very weak theologically.
http://ephemera.org/sets/?album=justlymarried&img=3
how can this be wrong? why would anyone want to stop this?
oh I know why...
they don't like gay people.
I may have missed it, but I don't think you've addressed the issue of separate but equal. I would like to know your opinion since we've had discussions across many threads and you're one of if not the strongest voice against gay marriage.
Obviously we disagree, but I would think that we both agree in principle that 'separate but equal' is not good enough for the United States. We have a higher standard that the country is held to (the Constitution.)
I guess my question is in several parts.
1) don't you agree that the country shouldn't support 'separate but equal'?
2) doesn't the marriage/civil union issue fall within the bounds of 'separate but equal'? <-- I'm open to interpretation on this one.
2a) if it is 'separate but equal' how can you support it?
2b) if it isn't 'separate but equal' I'll reevaluate.
Originally posted by Frank777
I wasn't aware that Christians fought a battle over interracial marriage. Care to say when?
Remember Bob Jones University, and the criticism it received when Bush gave a talk there? Part of it was because they didn't think banning interracial marriage went far enough, they had a ban on interracial dating. After all the controversy over Bush, they dropped the ban. That was just a few years ago.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/03/04/bob.jones/
"We're being defined as a racist school. That's all the media is talking about," he said, adding that "we don't hate Catholics, we love Catholics."
Jones said the university first implemented the dating ban more than five decades ago, "because we were trying ... to enforce something, a principle, that is much greater than this. We stand against the one world government, against the coming world of the antichrist."
"The principle upon which it was based is very important, but the rule is not. So we did away with it," he said.
"We realize that an interracial marriage is not going to bring in the world of antichrist by any means."
So interracial marriage is NOT going to bring the antichrist. Whew.
Since when was MLK a part of the "Religious Right"?