'Selma and Stonewall': Gay rights issues divide black civil rights leaders

Jan 28, 2013 Full story: blog.al.com 117

With his public endorsement of legalizing same sex marriage in May and last week's inaugural speech linking the civil rights movement of the 1960s to the struggles facing LGBT activists today, President Barack Obama has forced black civil rights leaders to confront an issue that sometimes divides them.

Full Story
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#121 Jan 30, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy is different because society views it differently.
R
oh I didn't realize majority opinion affected the right to marry...
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
How society views same-sex relationships has changed significantly over the past 10 years.
.
but no majority currently does, right?
I mean a majority of states BAN you...

so it can be said that a majority of society thinks gay relationships are different...

I can see why you guys avoid discussing polygamy...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#122 Jan 30, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
oh I didn't realize majority opinion affected the right to marry...
<quoted text>
but no majority currently does, right?
I mean a majority of states BAN you...
so it can be said that a majority of society thinks gay relationships are different...
I can see why you guys avoid discussing polygamy...
Of course majority opinion affects the right to marry. Without the majority we can't exercise our right- whether that's a majority of the SCOTUS or a majority of a state court or a majority of legislators or a majority of voters.

No, it can only be said a majority of voters in a majority of states have voted over the past 20 years to ban same-sex couples from marrying, but in the past year voters in 3 states have voted to allow same-sex couples to marry.

Only a moron would continue to pretend there has been no change in society's support for marriage equality over the past decade.

I have no problem discussing polygamy because it's a non-issue.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#123 Jan 30, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
its not ad hominem, its one of your favorite arguments that you don't like walking into...
You said: "You were probably lighting crosses up back then..."

That is an ad hominem attack. And not true by the way. I have always been anti-racist. My parents had the good sense to teach me prejudice was irrational and harmful.

And again, you fail to provide any argument on the merits.

Allowing otherwise legally qualified gay couples to participate under the laws currently in effect does not change anything for straight people. Their marriages remain the same. The social dynamics for them remain the same. Marriage equality for gay couples under the laws in effect is not the same as changing those laws for straight couples. It is a different argument.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#124 Jan 30, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course majority opinion affects the right to marry. Without the majority we can't exercise our right- whether that's a majority of the SCOTUS or a majority of a state court or a majority of legislators or a majority of voters.
No, it can only be said a majority of voters in a majority of states have voted over the past 20 years to ban same-sex couples from marrying, but in the past year voters in 3 states have voted to allow same-sex couples to marry.
Only a moron would continue to pretend there has been no change in society's support for marriage equality over the past decade.
I have no problem discussing polygamy because it's a non-issue.
Ol'e toreador.

yup, you used against polygamy an exact argument used against ssm marriage that you deny...
and then dodged it when i pointed it out...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#125 Jan 30, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
You said: "You were probably lighting crosses up back then..."
That is an ad hominem attack. And not true by the way. I have always been anti-racist. My parents had the good sense to teach me prejudice was irrational and harmful.
And again, you fail to provide any argument on the merits.
Allowing otherwise legally qualified gay couples to participate under the laws currently in effect does not change anything for straight people. Their marriages remain the same. The social dynamics for them remain the same. Marriage equality for gay couples under the laws in effect is not the same as changing those laws for straight couples. It is a different argument.
nah, I was just misapplying racial rights and then casting opposition to poly marriage as opposition to racial civil rights like you DO ALL THE TIME with gay marriage...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#126 Jan 30, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
nah, I was just misapplying racial rights and then casting opposition to poly marriage as opposition to racial civil rights like you DO ALL THE TIME with gay marriage...
And again, you fail to provide any argument on the merits.

Allowing otherwise legally qualified gay couples to participate under the laws currently in effect does not change anything for straight people.

Their marriages remain the same. The social dynamics for them remain the same. Marriage equality for gay couples under the laws in effect is not the same as changing those laws for straight couples.

As practiced, poly arrangements are usually unequal in structure, as the Jeffs cult and history demonstrate. They are not equal because they requires changing the rules for straight people, and changes in the social dynamics for straight people.

While those opposed to marriage equality for gay people are free to argue for polygamy, it is a very different argument.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#127 Jan 30, 2013
Same sex marriage under the same rules currently in effect for straight people = more of the same.

Poly arrangements = something very different for everyone.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#128 Jan 30, 2013
Inter-racial marriage under the rules already in effect for white folks = more of the same.

Same sex marriage under the same rules currently in effect for straight people = more of the same.

Poly arrangements = changing the rules to something very different for everyone.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#129 Jan 30, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
Ol'e toreador.
yup, you used against polygamy an exact argument used against ssm marriage that you deny...
and then dodged it when i pointed it out...
I dodged nothing.

Society will decide both issues by a majority rule as always.

I see absolutely no indication polygamy is any more accepted today than 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 years ago.

Obviously the same can't be said about marriage for same-sex couples. Every poll ever done over the past 20+ years shows a steady increase in support. We went from bans in all 50 states to being able to marry in 9 states plus DC. We went from losing every statewide popular vote 32 times in a row to winning the last 4 votes.

I'm not saying society WON'T eventually accept polygamy, just that I see no evidence of that whatsoever. THAT is what makes it irrelevant to marriage equality for same-sex couples.
Pete

Danbury, CT

#131 Jan 30, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
Most blacks are hypocritical and bigoted towards LGBT people.


LOL. So true. Here's the clip from the 49ers player (who has to live in San Francisco) from yesterday...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#132 Jan 30, 2013
While you can imagine poly arrangements that aren't abusive, history and current practice have clearly demonstrated many ways in which, as most often practiced, poly arrangements are often abusive and harmful, and result in unequal and unfair distribution of resources as well as women among men.

As practiced, it restricts the availability of women, denying some men the opportunity for marriage, which would have a destabilizing effect on society, whereas allowing gay people to marry has a stabilizing effect on society.

As it is usually one man and as many women as he can afford, it results in rich, often older, men having many wives, while young, poorer men have none. That results in putting pressure on women to marry younger, often before they can understand what they are entering, as is currently the practice. This dynamic also limits the ability of women to have equal opportunities for education and employment, as well as equal status in the relationship.

It also changes the genetic balance by limiting the gene pool, which history has shown is not in the interest of survivability of the species. Allowing gay people to marry does not limit the gene pool, but possibly expands it, as gay people can and do reproduce with the same help some straight couples use.

Additionally, gay couples often adopt, and often take in the hard to place children that have been abused and discarded by their straight parents, which provides another stabilizing influence on society.

There are other problems with polygamy including problems with child abuse, spousal abuse, and inequality of relationships, distribution of resources, and child custody among others.

While there are other arguments, these should help you understand the difference between allowing gay people to participate under the rules in effect, while poly arrangements would require changing the rules as well as the family and relationship dynamics for straight people and their children.

While not intended to be a discussion of the merits of poly arrangements, the harm that usually results has been consistently ruled to be sufficient justification for not recognizing those relationships legally, while same sex relationships under the current structure harm no one.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#133 Jan 31, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
oh I didn't realize majority opinion affected the right to marry...
<quoted text>
but no majority currently does, right?
I mean a majority of states BAN you...
so it can be said that a majority of society thinks gay relationships are different...
I can see why you guys avoid discussing polygamy...
If there are polygamists who want to be married to more than one person, why is it that there are none actually crying about it?
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#135 Jan 31, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
While you can imagine poly arrangements that aren't abusive, history and current practice have clearly demonstrated many ways in which, as most often practiced, poly arrangements are often abusive and harmful, and result in unequal and unfair distribution of resources as well as women among men.
As practiced, it restricts the availability of women, denying some men the opportunity for marriage, which would have a destabilizing effect on society, whereas allowing gay people to marry has a stabilizing effect on society.
As it is usually one man and as many women as he can afford, it results in rich, often older, men having many wives, while young, poorer men have none. That results in putting pressure on women to marry younger, often before they can understand what they are entering, as is currently the practice. This dynamic also limits the ability of women to have equal opportunities for education and employment, as well as equal status in the relationship.
It also changes the genetic balance by limiting the gene pool, which history has shown is not in the interest of survivability of the species. Allowing gay people to marry does not limit the gene pool, but possibly expands it, as gay people can and do reproduce with the same help some straight couples use.
Additionally, gay couples often adopt, and often take in the hard to place children that have been abused and discarded by their straight parents, which provides another stabilizing influence on society.
There are other problems with polygamy including problems with child abuse, spousal abuse, and inequality of relationships, distribution of resources, and child custody among others.
While there are other arguments, these should help you understand the difference between allowing gay people to participate under the rules in effect, while poly arrangements would require changing the rules as well as the family and relationship dynamics for straight people and their children.
While not intended to be a discussion of the merits of poly arrangements, the harm that usually results has been consistently ruled to be sufficient justification for not recognizing those relationships legally, while same sex relationships under the current structure harm no one.
Oh I didn't know generalizations based on stereotypes was relevant as to polygamy since you argue so hard against them as applied to you...

I can see why you guys tend to not discuss polygamy...
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#136 Jan 31, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If there are polygamists who want to be married to more than one person, why is it that there are none actually crying about it?
care to look into this sweetie?
you are wrong as usual.

http://www.inquisitr.com/487062/polygamy-coul...

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#137 Jan 31, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
care to look into this sweetie?
you are wrong as usual.
http://www.inquisitr.com/487062/polygamy-coul...
Meh, so then what's the problem? I fail to see why you want us to stop fighting for the equal rights of gay people.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#138 Jan 31, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Meh, so then what's the problem?
you constantly saying stuff that is flatly incorrect...

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#139 Jan 31, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
you constantly saying stuff that is flatly incorrect...
Really? So how come I rarely get corrected by someone who actually knows a thing or two?
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#140 Jan 31, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? So how come I rarely get corrected by someone who actually knows a thing or two?
you wrote:
"If there are polygamists who want to be married to more than one person, why is it that there are none actually crying about it?"

I showed you how you were IGNORANT...
and this is the thanks I get?
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#141 Jan 31, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

Every poll ever done over the past 20+ years shows a steady increase in support..
simply not true...

and I noticed you avoid the majority issue...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#142 Jan 31, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
care to look into this sweetie?
you are wrong as usual.
http://www.inquisitr.com/487062/polygamy-coul...
They're not suing for a right to marry, but rather claiming they can't be prosecuted for polygamy because they're NOT all married.

Obvious difference which of course went right over your head because all you saw was the big scary headline.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 3 min Boy G 50,755
Hayworth features gay son in ad 7 min CabronCarlos 23
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 33 min RevKen 25,512
Christian right key to Republican performance i... 1 hr WasteWater 70
Same-Sex Marriage Trumps Religious Liberty in N... (Aug '13) 4 hr Willothewisp 755
UT/TT Poll: Conditional Support for Same-Sex Un... 16 hr Dddavid 10
Know a good divorce lawyer? He did (Nov '08) 18 hr Michael2327 254

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE