[CornBurrito]

Nope, I'm the guy who says there is weak evidence at best at people being born gay. Gays have a choice of committing their acts, just as heterosexuals have a choice. Again I'm guessing, but I bet the CAAP is against premarital sex.

There is a large amount of evidence that sexual attraction is determined by numerous biological factors in many animal species. Humans are no exception.

And there is far more evidence supporting that homosexuality is a result of these factors than there is supporting the idea that it is a conscious decision.

Yes, it is a conscious decision to follow through on the feelings, however you have a losing argument if you think the feelings themselves are conscious decisions.

[DY_nasty]

Does this however mean that NAACP can't be in support of The Gay Rights Movement?

Did I ever say that?

And even if they didn't - the NAACP has lost almost all of its relevance anyway.

[CrazyDogg77]

The LGBT just need to adapt the MLK image to their cause, I guess since the African American community don't want to share. How 'bout Martino Luscious Kingsley the Third? Crevat wearing, no bullshit taking fabulous motherfucker. "This pastor needs to shut his dry ass lips and go back to whichever Arkansas rock he crawled out from. Mmmhmmm."

What?

[Kai Dracon]

That's true. I would personally just talk about this minority of people in the actual story: If you walked with Dr. King for civil rights equality for blacks, and you don't recognize the right of gays to do what they please, I feel like you are a hypocrite. Or rather... you were never a "rights" crusader at all. You were a black rights crusader, yes, but not a human rights crusader.

Ethical myopia: people rationalize that "rights" don't apply to one group of people who are in some way different from a prior group of people who do deserve particular "rights". The criteria for which the excluded group is identified don't have to be consistent or rational. They can be the most hypocritical thing in the world... but all that matters is the distinction is drawn and the wagons are circled to prevent that group from making it "inside".

Homosexuality is something which has traditionally occupied the position of a cultural boogyman. The Gay is a formless, shapeless fear. Something that by mere association, makes everything... icky. Uncertain. Bad. Corrupt.

Anti-gay crusaders attempt to pull a slick trick. They reiterate again and again how The Gays have full 'civil rights'. They'll point out how The Gay may vote. How He has 1st amendment rights, right to service at a restaurant, right to take the 5th... whatever they can pull up. Thus, they insist, nobody can say The Gay does not have equal rights.

Obviously, everything cited as proof of gays having equal rights, is a right that is not based around sexual orientation. So of course gays and lesbians share those rights already. The purpose of this rhetorical slight of hand seems twofold: first, insinuate that proper "rights" are not something in which sexual orientation is a factor, and second, from that help reinforce the ambient, hetero-normative groupthink to the effect that being gay is not 'real'. Not really. Encourage the suspicion that it's a trick; a mistake, error, delusion. Close the circle and feed back into the inherited cultural baggage that homosexuality is deviant, wrong, unnatural, and a sign of someone who is 'not right'. Untrustworthy. Bad. Corrupted, and corrupting.

From that kind of head space, you see popular lines of reasoning, like 'gays have a choice in committing their acts just like heterosexuals do'. Think about that one, seriously. WTF does that even mean? Is it just more of the (tiresome) rendering of LGBT down strictly to sexual acts? It's comparing homosexuality in the context of social disapproval to heterosexuality and equating them? So then heterosexuality is bad too? It's rhetorical nonsense, but it seems to originate from the disingenuous framework surrounding condemnation of and aversion to The Gayness.

There is a large amount of evidence that sexual attraction is determined by numerous biological factors in many animal species. Humans are no exception. And there is far more evidence supporting that homosexuality is a result of these factors than there is supporting the idea that it is a conscious decision. Yes, it is a conscious decision to follow through on the feelings, however you have a losing argument if you think the feelings themselves are conscious decisions.

Beyond this, here's a bigger fundamental hurdle for culture to overcome, and this is a point I've raised in discussions about sexual orientation before - let's say, for the sake of argument, that somebody somehow proves that being gay, etc, is absolutely 'a choice'. In a truly ethical scenario, the response to that should be "so what?"

Not that people would go along with that. There'd be plenty who flooded out to urge for legitimizing oppression of the deviant behavior strictly because it was deviant and scared them. If it could be proved tomorrow, scientifically in some batshit crazy way, that being gay is a choice there would be no difference in how harmless being gay or lesbian is. This is why, in one dimension, some have suggested it's misleading (but unfortunately necessary) to focus on sexual/emotional/relationship orientation as purely biological when defending minority groups. Technically, nobody should give a shit who is shagging who, who has a relationship with who, and who is who's life partner.

In my experience the vast majority of people who have either grown up without prejudice or have had their mindset fully overhauled with fresh understanding, do not actually care why someone is gay. They don't go around thinking "well, it's too bad I have to accept my gay friend Charlie, I've love to be a bigot and treat him like a second class citizen, but his gay is biological, so it's all equality and progressive attitudes for me!"

It seems the further someone's mentality evolves on such issues, the more the reasons and origin for someone's fundamental identity cease to matter and the ethical framework graduates into a higher, abstract level. One stops demanding other people justify why they should be treated the same no matter who they are, so long as behavior resulting from their identity causes no harm, and starts operating with the assumption of equality in advance.

[Pollux]

Hm, I've never heard that. At any rate, I know that my (I guess ex) pastor was furious at Obama's decision - I imagine he feels the same about this. But... being gay is considered a sin, so really you should expect the people who are (actually) Christian to disagree.

Being gay is not the sin.

[BSTF]

What does this even mean? If anyone should identify with the struggles of gay people, it's black people. Civil rights are civil rights, period. This should apply to those who were involved in the Civil Rights movement even more, to be honest.

Because the discrimination isn't nearly the same. Again, I don't know their stance, but if they came out against polygamy would it be considered such an awful discrimination?

I thought it was about judging people by the content of their character.

And a gays character is pretty much defined by committing acts they are against. Which is the whole point.

Yes, there are some people that just say "I hate gay people."

That's a different group then religious people against gay marriage that view it as a sin.

[SquiddyCracker]

There is a large amount of evidence that sexual attraction is determined by numerous biological factors in many animal species. Humans are no exception. And there is far more evidence supporting that homosexuality is a result of these factors than there is supporting the idea that it is a conscious decision. Yes, it is a conscious decision to follow through on the feelings, however you have a losing argument if you think the feelings themselves are conscious decisions.

His argument has nothing to do with how you feel or how much you want to be with a particular person.
The christian argument in this case is that you still have a choice, to actually commit the sexual sin.

It's a funny argument, because it is often used by some to look "progressive" (I don't hate the sinner, only the sin) while at the same time being the opposite of progressive.

[Dragon]

And a gays character is pretty much defined by committing acts they are against. Which is the whole point. Yes, there are some people that just say "I hate gay people." That's a different group then religious people against gay marriage that view it as a sin.

These so-called Christians who view gay marriage as a sin are the ones that say: "No I don't hate gay people, I love them like I love all people. That's what our Lord tells us to do. I just don't accept their actions." They're just as damaging as the outright haters in my opinion.

Being gay is not the sin.

I'd say being narrow-minded, hateful and bigoted is more of a sin than loving someone. But that seems way too practical for some people.

[The Faceless Master]

Why does the media keep focusing so much on what black people think on this issue when there are more white people in the US against gay marriage than black people? Let's hear the opinions of the Mormon, Catholic and Jewish clergy men!

because black people doing bad things = ratings, sales, money, etc... that's what people want to watch and read and discuss.

[MightyHealthy]

Some of these cowards were the same folks who made Bayard Rustin take a backseat during the civil rights movement.

[BSTF]

There is a large amount of evidence that sexual attraction is determined by numerous biological factors in many animal species. Humans are no exception. And there is far more evidence supporting that homosexuality is a result of these factors than there is supporting the idea that it is a conscious decision. Yes, it is a conscious decision to follow through on the feelings, however you have a losing argument if you think the feelings themselves are conscious decisions.

There is no definitive biological factor to determine whether an individual will be homosexual or not.

These so-called Christians who view gay marriage as a sin are the ones that say: "No I don't hate gay people, I love them like I love all people. That's what our Lord tells us to do. I just don't accept their actions." They're just as damaging as the outright haters in my opinion.

And, you can take something more obvious like the Catholic churches past, and now somewhat loosened stance stance on condom usage. You can argue that it's stupid, but it's not the same vile form of discrimination that African Americans went through during the civil rights movement.

[PhoenixPause]

Its not even the same thing. Would you "raise awareness for natural disasters" and lump New Orleans, Haiti, and Japan into same the pamphlet? Then why would you do it for social issues? I'm not comparing asswhoopings. I'm saying look at things for what they are instead of trying to lump shit together for the sake of making an argument easier.

How is it not the same thing that a gay person can't visit their spouse in the hospital (in some states), can't marry, are openly discriminated against in legal/benefits matters, etc etc etc? I work at a dental office, we've got multiple gay patients who looked relieved when they heard we accept patients who have same sex spouses on their insurance...because other practices have turned them away over one weak excuse or another.

All that is discrimination, some of which black people once faced - which is why the Civil Rights movement was started. This isn't apples to oranges (or tsunamis to earthquakes), it's people not being recognized by equal rights and laws they should have access to in the United States Of America.

[CornBurrito]

There is no definitive biological factor to determine whether an individual will be homosexual or not.

You're right. That's because there seem to be numerous biological factors at play.

[Dragon]

There is no definitive biological factor to determine whether an individual will be homosexual or not.

Yeah I know I'd rather choose the side that has many people hateful towards me for my daring to love another person. You know because that makes a lot of sense.

[DY_nasty]

How is it not the same thing that a gay person can't visit their spouse in the hospital (in some states), can't marry, are openly discriminated against in legal/benefits matters, etc etc etc? I work at a dental office, we've got multiple gay patients who looked relieved when they heard we accept patients who have same sex spouses on their insurance...because other practices have turned them away over one weak excuse or another. All that is discrimination, some of which black people once faced - which is why the Civil Rights movement was started. This isn't apples to oranges (or tsunamis to earthquakes), it's people not being recognized by equal rights and laws they should have access to in the United States Of America.

You're talking within one scenario, the big issue right now, and you know that. Marriage and the legal issues surrounding it tie into a lot of issues. Yes. But take a step back and tell me all of the differences, fucked up or not, between the typical 2012 black household/family and the 2012 gay household/family.

There's a ton of shit to talk about before even touching discrimination. Don't just wrap everything up in this one issue and pretend that it is all encompassing when it isn't.

[CornBurrito]

Yeah I know I'd rather choose the side that has many people hateful towards me for my daring to love another person. You know because that makes a lot of sense.

That's actually not a very strong argument. Political alignment is a conscious choice, and people have chosen to adhere to political ideologies that were rather unpopular at the time/location.

Twin studies, brain scans, responses to hormonal signals, etc... are much stronger indications that sexual attraction towards members of the same sex is biological in nature.

[Dragon]

That's actually not a very strong argument. Political alignment is a conscious choice, and people have chosen to adhere to political ideologies that were rather unpopular at the time/location. Twin studies, brain scans, responses to hormonal signals, etc... are much stronger indications that sexual attraction towards members of the same sex is biological in nature.

I wasn't arguing as much for the biological evidence as I was against the idea that it's a choice. You're right though, I should be more rational instead of spewing emotional vitriol. My bad.

[MrGame&Watch]

I think this is ironically enough a sign of progress. It's nice to see the black community as not some monolithic entity. I believe stuff like this will help end a lot of racism. When people can't pigeon-hole a group of people as easily, it makes it more difficult to identify people based on some general characteristic they may share. For example, there aren't really many racist stereotypes against white people specifically, but certain subsets. Ex: hippies, rednecks, etc

[Bay Maximus]

I've been sitting here trying to beat this darn Bubble Burst level 70 for the past 3 hours. Just thinking about how it relates to black civil rights.

[blame space]

haha

[Hitokage]

Its not even the same thing.

Your attitude towards this issue either demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of the reality of being homosexual in many parts of the country prior to the Lawrence v Texas ruling in 2003, or a disturbing amount of apathy for a group you want to see disowned from the term "civil rights".

Being gay used to mean you were a criminal, and could be treated as such. Even today full rights aren't in place across the country.

It's not just marriage, and you should seriously rethink your views toward your fellow citizens.

[BSTF]

You're right. That's because there seem to be numerous biological factors at play.

There is no collection of factors.

Yeah I know I'd rather choose the side that has many people hateful towards me for my daring to love another person. You know because that makes a lot of sense.

I don't care who you love. I really don't care much about gay marriage. I do care about the constant blaming of blacks regarding gay marriage. And I care about people like Obsessed seemingly trying to say gays have no free will.

[DY_nasty]

I'm sorry, but your attitude towards this issue either demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of the reality of being homosexual in many parts of the country prior to the Lawrence v Texas ruling in 2003, or a disturbing amount of apathy for a group you want to see disowned from the term "civil rights". Being gay used to mean you were a criminal, and could be treated as such. Even today full rights aren't in place across the country. It's not just marriage, and you should seriously rethink your views toward your fellow citizens.

I never said it was just marriage. I said that it is a big focus right now - in response to PD's post.

As he alluded, we've spoke on it in the past.

And also, I think you and others have the wrong idea - I'm not trying to pee in anyone's parade, I'm just tired of the never ending comparisons and attempts to lump the two together. Like when people on the first page said that the Civil Rights Movement was meant to include LGBT issues as well when it clearly wasn't. That's just factually incorrect.

[Sai-kun]

There is no collection of factors. I don't care who you love. I really don't care much about gay marriage. I do care about the constant blaming of blacks regarding gay marriage. And I care about people like Obsessed seemingly trying to say gays have no free will.

Sure, I guess they're free to not have gay sex and all that great stuff, but they have no free will over what they desire.

[Parallax]

Your attitude towards this issue either demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of the reality of being homosexual in many parts of the country prior to the Lawrence v Texas ruling in 2003, or a disturbing amount of apathy for a group you want to see disowned from the term "civil rights". Being gay used to mean you were a criminal, and could be treated as such. Even today full rights aren't in place across the country. It's not just marriage, and you should seriously rethink your views toward your fellow citizens.

I was gonna question what you posted, but I see you edited it.

[CornBurrito]

There is no collection of factors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology...al_orientation

You are factually incorrect. Have a nice day.

And I care about people like Obsessed seemingly trying to say gays have no free will.

How am I saying that at all? You either suck at reading comprehension, or are deliberately misunderstanding my posts.

"Yes, it is a conscious decision to follow through on the feelings, however you have a losing argument if you think the feelings themselves are conscious decisions."

And if you want to take "sexual attraction is biological in nature" as a "no free will" thing, then technically I am arguing that straights don't have free will either.

[Hitokage]

Sure, I guess they're free to not have gay sex and all that great stuff, but they have no free will over what they desire.

It's an utterly patronizing position. Oh, sure, it's ok if you're gay, just don't try to actually do anything that it implies.

And also, I think you and others have the wrong idea - I'm not trying to pee in anyone's parade, I'm just tired of the never ending comparisons and attempts to lump the two together. Like when people on the first page said that the Civil Rights Movement was meant to include LGBT issues as well when it clearly wasn't. That's just factually incorrect.

That's like arguing that when this nation was founded they didn't really mean anyone but white male landowners.

[DECK'ARD]

There is no collection of factors. I don't care who you love. I really don't care much about gay marriage. I do care about the constant blaming of blacks regarding gay marriage. And I care about people like Obsessed seemingly trying to say gays have no free will.

Your posts are actually hurting my brain.

[chris.trejo]

I wonder what he would say if someone tried to make interracial marriages illegal again.

[PhoenixPause]

You're talking within one scenario, the big issue right now, and you know that. Marriage and the legal issues surrounding it tie into a lot of issues. Yes. But take a step back and tell me all of the differences, fucked up or not, between the typical 2012 black household/family and the 2012 gay household/family. There's a ton of shit to talk about before even touching discrimination. Don't just wrap everything up in this one issue and pretend that it is all encompassing when it isn't.

What are you arguing/pointing out here, and how does it combat the fact that this is a group of people being denied equal rights? As I said earlier, I'm not going to get into a direct comparison of who got screwed harder. I see a group of people being treated differently, and apparently you don't or don't care?

[GillianSeed79]

Because the discrimination isn't nearly the same. Again, I don't know their stance, but if they came out against polygamy would it be considered such an awful discrimination? And a gays character is pretty much defined by committing acts they are against. Which is the whole point. Yes, there are some people that just say "I hate gay people." That's a different group then religious people against gay marriage that view it as a sin.

The problem with this rationale and a lot of arguments against gay marriage is that they conflate the issue into solely a religious one rather than a legal one. You can get married by a judge just as easily as by a priest. Marriage, at its base core is a social/legal contract in the eyes of the law. With marriage comes certain rights in the eyes of the law. Polygamy isn't illegal because of a religious issue or because people think its icky. It's because of practical, boring shit like tax laws that would have to be entirely re-written.

That's why the civil unions argument falls apart. The issue of gay marriage for supporters is about equal protection under the law. Civil unions are seperate but not equal. It wasn't until recently, for example, that gays got hospital visitation rights.

I think people have this weird fear that gays are going to force Christian priests to marry them or something. Again, it's an equal protection issue. If you are straight and sue for divorce you have certain rights, for example, and no judge gives two shits about which sky god or holy temple your marriage took place in.

I'm straight, but unless someone can give me a compelling legal argument why gay marriage should be illegal I see no reason to be against it.

[BSTF]

Sure, I guess they're free to not have gay sex and all that great stuff, but they have no free will over what they desire.

Are you arguing whether the desire happens before or after birth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology...al_orientation You are factually incorrect. Have a nice day. How am I saying that at all? You either suck at reading comprehension, or are deliberately misunderstanding my posts. "Yes, it is a conscious decision to follow through on the feelings, however you have a losing argument if you think the feelings themselves are conscious decisions."

Cool, can you show me the definitive factors? Because that Wikipedia article lists zero.

"There is a large amount of evidence that sexual attraction is determined by numerous biological factors in many animal species."

Show me one shred of evidence that says if this child has these factors they will be gay.

[The Lamp]

smh. As soon as religion isn't used to stop natural and societal progress, the world will be a better place.

You expect religions that believe in their moral truths to pack up their crap every few hundred years and rewrite its doctrine to appease societal progress? That's funny.

[CornBurrito]

Cool, can you show me the definitive factors? Because that Wikipedia article lists zero.

Not having a definitive answer does not mean that a position has absolutely zero evidence supporting it.

[DY_nasty]

What are you arguing/pointing out here, and how does it combat the fact that this is a group of people being denied equal rights? As I said earlier, I'm not going to get into a direct comparison of who got screwed harder. I see a group of people being treated differently, and apparently you don't or don't care?

I never said anything about anyone getting screwed harder in this thread. I don't even know where that shit came from. I said that things aren't the same and you tried to turn that into who got lynched the hardest. And all I did with the bolded was lay out the fact that there is a BIG difference in the two communities - people want to talk about just marriage regarding civil rights and I'm going to reiterate that civil rights goes way beyond that and that discrimination and mistreatment has many different forms and many different origins (as I responded to the other guy on the same page).

That's like arguing that when this nation was founded they didn't really mean anyone but white male landowners.

We're clearly not on the same page here.

Let me reiterate just to be safe... people are saying that the CRM, as an event/period, meant to say or include certain things. That's simply disingenuous. It was what it was - and it doesn't translate to today either. Women's Rights has evolved, the black community now is very different from what it was then as well. I just stated that again.

Maybe the issue is that people are referring to Civil Rights and not the Civil Rights Movement. Because they are different, and the CRM is far from some magnificent, racism ending, bridge building entity that many seem to treat it as.

[MIMIC]

How is it not the same thing that a gay person can't visit their spouse in the hospital (in some states), can't marry, are openly discriminated against in legal/benefits matters, etc etc etc? I work at a dental office, we've got multiple gay patients who looked relieved when they heard we accept patients who have same sex spouses on their insurance...because other practices have turned them away over one weak excuse or another. All that is discrimination, some of which black people once faced - which is why the Civil Rights movement was started. This isn't apples to oranges (or tsunamis to earthquakes), it's people not being recognized by equal rights and laws they should have access to in the United States Of America.

I've never understood this. Doesn't the patient decide who can visit them and who can't?

[Sai-kun]

Are you arguing whether the desire happens before or after birth?

Does it matter? You can't decide to be attracted to men in the same way that gay guys can't decide to be attracted to women. Now that doesn't mean that you couldn't have sex with one, but it probably wouldn't do anything for you.

[DECK'ARD]

Are you arguing whether the desire happens before or after birth? Cool, can you show me the definitive factors? Because that Wikipedia article lists zero. "There is a large amount of evidence that sexual attraction is determined by numerous biological factors in many animal species." Show me one shred of evidence that says if this child has these factors they will be gay.

Disabling one gene which regulates how hormones are absorbed in the womb led to every female mouse being homosexual.

This gene isn't on/off it has varying efficiencies, which would explain the spectrum of sexuality from straight, through bisexual, to gay. As hormone levels would effect how the regions of the brain which govern sexual attraction develop.

You also seem to be confusing sex with sexuality. Actions don't determine your sexuality, they are a product of your sexuality. Someone is straight whether they have had sex or not, it is the same with anyone else. You can act or not act on it, but that isn't changing anything.

Also out of curiousity, when did you choose your sexuality?

[slit]

I never said anything about anyone getting screwed harder in this thread. I don't even know where that shit came from. I said that things aren't the same and you tried to turn that into who got lynched the hardest. And all I did with the bolded was lay out the fact that there is a BIG difference in the two communities - people want to talk about just marriage regarding civil rights and I'm going to reiterate that civil rights goes way beyond that and that discrimination and mistreatment has many different forms and many different origins (as I responded to the other guy on the same page). We're clearly not on the same page here. Let me reiterate just to be safe... people are saying that the CRM, as an event/period, meant to say or include certain things. That's simply disingenuous. It was what it was - and it doesn't translate to today either. Women's Rights has evolved, the black community now is very different from what it was then as well. I just stated that again. Maybe the issue is that people are referring to Civil Rights and not the Civil Rights Movement. Because they are different, and the CRM is far from some magnificent, racism ending, bridge building entity that many seem to treat it as.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that because CRM's are not all the same you can't draw any parallels between them? Or are you just speaking out because some people tried to say that the CRM during the 60's was somehow tied to gay rights?

[CornBurrito]

Disabling one gene which regulates how hormones are absorbed in the womb led to every female mouse being homosexual.

Hmm this is fascinating. By any chance do you have the paper on you, or at least an article covering this study?

[GillianSeed79]

I've never understood this. Doesn't the patient decide who can visit them and who can't?

Say your significant other is in a horrible accident and is unonscious or on the verge of death. The way I understand it is the hospital only lets next of kin or spouses be with the patient in such an emergency situation. Or say your gay partner is dying of cancer and goes into a coma. The way I understand it is since you aren't next of kin or a spouse, you don't get to be with them in their last moments.

I could be wrong.

[DECK'ARD]

Hmm this is fascinating. By any chance do you have the paper on you, or at least an article covering this study?

Yeah, I'll find it for you. It is fascinating.

Logically sexual attraction would be governed by the sex hormones, and how we develop in the womb. That also fits with the study of younger brothers where hormone levels in the womb are different after the birth of the first son.

Younger brothers have more chance of being gay.

Edit: Here is an article on the mice http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...ting-gene.html

[PhoenixPause]

I never said anything about anyone getting screwed harder in this thread. I don't even know where that shit came from. I said that things aren't the same and you tried to turn that into who got lynched the hardest. And all I did with the bolded was lay out the fact that there is a BIG difference in the two communities - people want to talk about just marriage regarding civil rights and I'm going to reiterate that civil rights goes way beyond that and that discrimination and mistreatment has many different forms and many different origins (as I responded to the other guy on the same page).

But marriage equality isn't the only area where gay people are discriminated against. wtf

[The Faceless Master]

I wonder what he would say if someone tried to make interracial marriages illegal again.

actually, let's not even ask that. i bet some of those pastors would be all for it.

[DY_nasty]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that because CRM's are not all the same you can't draw any parallels between them? Or are you just speaking out because some people tried to say that the CRM during the 60's was somehow tied to gay rights?

The "big" Civil Rights Movement that everyone likes to refer to didn't do anything real for LGBT rights at all.

The climate back then wasn't anywhere close to what it is today either.

But marriage equality isn't the only area where gay people are discriminated against. wtf

It isn't - and I stated as such. You led off with that though. And I responded.

[Orayn]

You expect religions that believe in their moral truths to pack up their crap every few hundred years and rewrite its doctrine to appease societal progress? That's funny.

As opposed to holding onto bronze age morality that's completely out of touch with the way the world actually works? Then yes, that's exactly what I expect.

Even you seem to be admitting that these changes are for the better.

[The Faceless Master]

I've never understood this. Doesn't the patient decide who can visit them and who can't?

in some situations, visits are restricted to immediate family members only restriction...

gay marriage spouse = not recognized = can't visit

[Gaborn]

I never said it was just marriage. I said that it is a big focus right now - in response to PD's post. As he alluded, we've spoke on it in the past. And also, I think you and others have the wrong idea - I'm not trying to pee in anyone's parade, I'm just tired of the never ending comparisons and attempts to lump the two together. Like when people on the first page said that the Civil Rights Movement was meant to include LGBT issues as well when it clearly wasn't. That's just factually incorrect.

I'm curious, and I mean this seriously. When MLK Jr. wrote

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid. Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

What do you think he is saying? Or, to use another period example what was President Kennedy saying when he delivered his famous line Ich bin ein Berliner?

It troubles me that it seems people have lost the depth, the meaning of what it is to be free, to be equal under the law. But more than that, to strive, and to know that all freedom loving people strive for the same thing. Some people might object to some groups. Gandhi, for example was notably racist, and yet he too is considered a strong advocate for rights and freedom and peace.

Whatever your answer, I believe when MLK Jr. wrote those words he wasn't necessarily thinking of gays, and if that is the standard you want to use, then fine. But I think you diminish his point and his legacy if you take from his statement merely that race shall not be a divider, that racial injustice is the injustice he was fighting, to the exclusion of other forms of injustice. I believe you can see the same theme from Kennedy's speech. Obviously he wasn't a citizen of west germany in a literal sense... but he was in a moral sense. Kennedy understood that people that yearn for and support freedom are themselves all in a common cause whatever our other differences. That human dignity and human liberty are principles that transcend race, class, religion, and nationality.

Frankly, that's the vision I have of the civil rights movement. Not some desire just to make sure blacks get theirs, but rather as part of the larger human struggle for freedom, peace, and understanding.

[slit]

The "big" Civil Rights Movement that everyone likes to refer to didn't do anything real for LGBT rights at all. The climate back then wasn't anywhere close to what it is today either.

Ok, but is there something wrong with making connections from the past to today's climate and today's issues? serious question.

[Pollux]

I'd say being narrow-minded, hateful and bigoted is more of a sin than loving someone. But that seems way too practical for some people.

While I agree with you, I'm just pointing out the distinction. Not that it makes a difference, but on things like that I'm a bit of a "stickler". I blame it on going to a religious school where that distinction on a test in religion class may have been the difference between a A and a B. Sorry lol