Great speech on Gay Rights

[antonlavey]

they're not though...when you look at da laws its boils down to taxes.
[/quote











Everyday I wake up and thank God I wasn't raised in washington heights.

 

[fraij da 5 11]

Ahhh yes. Da laws. Of course, they just want to have better tax breaks... Has nothing to do with marrying the person they love!

 

[futuremd]

tell me what is the gay rights plight this **** is ******g stupid.

what does it extend to beyond marriage and the rights assosciated with marriage. maybe child guardianship and THATS it. cosign with the belief people have been crying about tax breaks without even knowing it. a gay person can do everything any person can do. they don't ask me if i'm straight before i live my life every day.

basically.

other then tax breaks, its really a big fuss over da word "marriage" and religious folks aint trying to give it up

Either government has the right to get involved in "marriage" or it doesn't.

A. If government is involved, then everyone should be allowed to get married if thats the term we're using. Otherwise coming up with separate terms is akin to "separate is equal"...which we know is unconstitutional. 

B. If government isn't involved then marriage doesn't exist. 

And yes, it does come down to financial and right of life benefits. 

Even lesbians in the military are having trouble getting basic rights transferred to their spouses: http://www.businessinsider.com/sgt-johnson-defense-of-marriage-act-army-times-doma-2012-10

This stuff affects people and you don't get to trivialize it by asking why aren't we talking about some other issue. 

An issue, is an issue. 

 

[futuremd]

good video. seemed like it flew over the audience's head, though
bald dude's reaction on the left is the best

in b4 people say you cant compare gay rights to the civil rights

Yeah I peeped homeboy's reaction

Pretty clever speech. I think it landed, you could hear a little crowd reaction, but that crowd doesn't really seem like the livest audience.

If this was in front of a black audience the reaction would have been classic

, and that's one of the audience that need a speech like this. As a black man few things grind my gears more than seeing African Americans using the bible/religion as a reason to deny gays and lesbian equal rights

There you go. 

The speech didn't land that well because EVERYONE ELSE was like this:

Its so ridiculous. More than half those dudes sound like closet cases themselves.

 

[futuremd]

WTF are you talking about b? stop trying to compare da black civil rights movement to gay marriage rights, its such a bad comparison its embarrassing as far as im concerned.

You are downplaying the plight by pointing to the potential monetary benefits....I'm merely contrasting that with allowing mixed race marriages....

You can have equal rights without having to marry another race....right?

like i said, gay marriage is PURELY a tax issue, cuz it DAMN SURE ain't based on any religious institution..and i KNOW you aint trying to go there.

Except everyone opposing it is religious? 

 

[createdestroy]

Gay Marriage is a marriage issue, not a civil rights issue. (As is all other marriages that are not allowed between consenting adults)

According to your own definition....allowing interracial marriages was a marriage issue not a civil rights one?

 

[Betonblck]

According to your own definition....allowing interracial marriages was a marriage issue not a civil rights one?

Repped

The topic of Interracial marriages is a bit more complicated because Black people weren't considered whole people (3/5ths of a person)

I take back my previous statement after giving it more thought, interracial marriage is different because the concept was based on one race being superior to the other so they could not be married. It is rooted in white supremacy, which makes it a civil rights issue.

The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
“ There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Interracial marriage upset the concept of white supremacy and the racial hierarchy, making it a civil rights issue.

 

[Mark Antony]

Here comes the NTers who think Gay Rights aren't a civil rights issue.

they're not though...when you look at da laws its boils down to taxes.

Word, reminds me of when they abolished slavery for similar economic reasons.

 

[futuremd]

According to your own definition....allowing interracial marriages was a marriage issue not a civil rights one?

Repped

The topic of Interracial marriages is a bit more complicated because Black people weren't considered whole people (3/5ths of a person)

I take that back, interracial marriage is different because the concept was based on one race being superior to the other so they could not be married. It is rooted in white supremacy, which makes it a civil rights issue.

The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
“ There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

The topic of interracial marriage is even MORE absurd when you think about it because genetically, there is almost no such thing as race as there is just a continuum of genetic dissimilarity.

Like how does race dilute itself? Its just an utterly asinine question. Your grandfather was black so now you're black? Its just complete stupidity. 

 

[Mound Raised]

they're not though...when you look at da laws its boils down to taxes.
[/quote











Everyday I wake up and thank God I wasn't raised in washington heights.

sig

 

[createdestroy]

Repped
The topic of Interracial marriages is a bit more complicated because Black people weren't considered whole people (3/5ths of a person)
I take back my previous statement after giving it more thought, interracial marriage is different because the concept was based on one race being superior to the other so they could not be married. It is rooted in white supremacy, which makes it a civil rights issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Interracial marriage upset the concept of white supremacy and the racial hierarchy, making it a civil rights issue.

So its a civil rights issue because they thought Whites were superior to blacks..
But its not a civil rights issue when Straights think they are superior to gays??

You have to understand that "civil rights" includes more categories than just race....

And anti-miscegeny laws existed throughout our history until the 60's....so the 3/5ths argument doesn't apply to the issue

 

[antonlavey]

Word, reminds me of when they abolished slavery for similar economic reasons.

he's not black, he is spanish and owns slaves.

 

[Betonblck]

So its a civil rights issue because they thought Whites were superior to blacks..
But its not a civil rights issue when Straights think they are superior to gays??
You have to understand that "civil rights" includes more categories than just race....
And anti-miscegeny laws existed throughout our history until the 60's....so the 3/5ths argument doesn't apply to the issue

The interracial marriage issue is based on racial superiority and keeping one race in a superior level and position.

Gay marriage isn't based on superiority.

 

[leochild]

So its a civil rights issue because they thought Whites were superior to blacks..
But its not a civil rights issue when Straights think they are superior to gays??

You have to understand that "civil rights" includes more categories than just race....

And anti-miscegeny laws existed throughout our history until the 60's....so the 3/5ths argument doesn't apply to the issue

Yes, there are different levels of civil rights issues.

But even in the 60s, a black baby being born carried a whole different potential for struggle than a baby born today who may/may not ened up being gay.

The problem starts when people try to compare the two.

The Civil Rights movement started to gain equal footing for blacks as human beings and citizens of a country.

Marriage rights are separate from that.

 

[thadocta]

if being gay is not a choice is not liking gays a choice?

 

[scarsorscabs]

if being gay is not a choice is not liking gays a choice?

Well, being mentally handicapped is not a choice.

 

[fraij da 5 11]

if being gay is not a choice is not liking gays a choice?

 

[futuremd]

if being gay is not a choice is not liking gays a choice?

I don't care if you're a racist, you have that choice, but you don't get to prevent black people from having the same access to and legal protections under the law that you enjoy.

 

[gottabeem21]

da MAIN reason to get married if your gay is to recieve all da tax incentives and financial

is that why people get married? for tax benefits?

 

[futuremd]

da MAIN reason to get married if your gay is to recieve all da tax incentives and financial

is that why people get married? for tax benefits?

If we get past the religious claims that they hold on marriage, which are entirely illegitimate (among other things), then the only benefits of a marriage are tax benefits, and right of life privileges in case of emergencies with spouses. Additional things include financial consolidation and what not. 

But at the end of the day, its more than just about money.

Pay attention to Ninjahood. He just lets the (and I completely mean this) bigot card fly because all he wants to do, as he has done in other threads, is to trivialize this down to just a tax issue instead of looking at the implied marginalization that gays already encounter in society. 

He can't do any better than to mask his distaste for the entire measure than to wrap it in his thinly veiled hit on it being an economic issue and not one of sheer moral inconsistency...but hes not willing to approach that because he knows the religious stance falls over and he also knows that the social argument falls over quickly. 

Watch his next argument try to compare it to polygamy or beastiality as he's done in the past. This is what people resort to when they can't just stick to the initial topic. 

If people just openly admitted that gays make them feel icky and they don't like the thought of two men having sex, we wouldn't have to talk about this crap in metaphors and extrapolated comparisons just so people get the point.

Fat people screwing bugs me too, but you don't see me trying to limit their access to legal recognition. 

 

[createdestroy]

Yes, there are different levels of civil rights issues.
But even in the 60s, a black baby being born carried a whole different potential for struggle than a baby born today who may/may not ened up being gay.
The problem starts when people try to compare the two.
The Civil Rights movement started to gain equal footing for blacks as human beings and citizens of a country.
Marriage rights are separate from that.

So you are saying that interracial marriage/miscegeny laws have nothing to do with civil rights.

And blacks can have civil rights without being able to marry whites?

 

[ninjahood]

da MAIN reason to get married if your gay is to recieve all da tax incentives and financial

is that why people get married? for tax benefits?

If we get past the religious claims that they hold on marriage, which are entirely illegitimate (among other things), then the only benefits of a marriage are tax benefits, and right of life privileges in case of emergencies with spouses. Additional things include financial consolidation and what not. 

But at the end of the day, its more than just about money.

Pay attention to Ninjahood. He just lets the (and I completely mean this) bigot card fly because all he wants to do, as he has done in other threads, is to trivialize this down to just a tax issue instead of looking at the implied marginalization that gays already encounter in society. 

He can't do any better than to mask his distaste for the entire measure than to wrap it in his thinly veiled hit on it being an economic issue and not one of sheer moral inconsistency...but hes not willing to approach that because he knows the religious stance falls over and he also knows that the social argument falls over quickly. 

oh yea? what kinda of marginalization do gay people receive that trample on their rights in da UNITED STATES other then equal tax benefits when it comes to

marriage? nothing other then da stigma of being of homosexual, and thats NEVER gonna go away either, no matter how bad da LGBT community wants it to.

and you implying that im implying is just you REACHING as usual. you can't say im wrong so you're gonna assume my intent come from wrong.

clown issh.

like i said, gay marriage is STRICTLY a tax issue. cuz it like i said before, it damn sure aint a religious one, cuz when it comes to that realm da gays are marked to burn

in hell in those circles, so that leaves em with da tax benefits. cuz honestly like you said before

Quote:Originally Posted by FutureMD  
 

Labels are distractions.

homosexuals dont need da "marriage" label to validate da fondness of icky stuff they do to eachother..."a rose would be a rose" blah blah blah..

which brings up da question why do they wanna pry da ownership of "marriage" from da religious folk SO BAD? that's theirs...cry and complain about it all you want, but

thats theirs. civil unions were created so that gays can get da tax benefits without calling it marriage to not piss off da churches and its not enuff for em. *shrugs*

gay people's conquest of da word "marriage" will be theirs when they rip it out of da cold dead fingers of da religious evangelists. and thats da truth. 

 

[createdestroy]

oh yea? what kinda of marginalization do gay people receive that trample on their rights in da UNITED STATES other then equal tax benefits when it comes to marriage? nothing other then da

stigma of being of homosexual.

and you implying that im implying is just you REACHING as usual. you can't say im wrong so you're gonna assume my intent come from wrong. clown issh.

like i said, gay marriage is STRICTLY a tax issue. cuz it like i said before, it damn sure aint a religious one, cuz when it comes to that realm da gays are marked to burn

in hell in those circles, so that leaves em with da tax benefits. cuz honestly like you said before


homosexuals dont need da "marriage" label to validate da fondness of icky stuff they do to eachother..."a rose would be a rose" blah blah blah..

which brings up da question why do they wanna pry da ownership of "marriage" from da religious folk SO BAD? that's theirs...cry and complain about it all you want, but

thats theirs. civil unions were created so that gays can get da tax benefits without calling it marriage to not piss off da churches and its not enuff for em. *shrugs*

gay people's conquest of da word "marriage" will be theirs when they rip it out of da cold dead fingers of da religious evangelists. and thats da truth. 

1. Religion does not own marriage...otherwise atheists/satanists wouldn't be able to marry
2. Equal tax benefits feels like a civil right, just like equal protection under law, equal voting rights under law, equal property rights under law.
3. If you just don't like the idea of men being intimate with each other just say it, don't try to make it an economic issue...when the civil rights movement included economic issues as well

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

The interracial marriage issue is based on racial superiority and keeping one race in a superior level and position.

Gay marriage isn't based on superiority.

it is, though. it has to do with morality. those that oppose gay marriage are typically religious and view homosexuality as an immoral act. in other words, their morality is held with greater regard than others. that's a matter of selfishness and superiority.

 

[RustyShackleford]

^^^^A question to you, since it is just a "tax issue". Would you be cool with separate the event of getting married in a church with the rights and privaleges a state issued married licnese grants. For example

-All couples gay or straight can enter into state issued civil unions that give them exactly the same right as current day marriage licenses do. ALL COUPLES, SAME RIGHTS

-The act of being joined together as husband and wife under god remains in churches.

-Gays are free to form their own church and what ever they please inside it.

Would you Ninjahood be cool with that?