This Ain't Montgomery and YOU Ain't Rosa Parks!

Published on June 4, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

While I'm firmly against the idea of banning gay marriage, I am sick and tired of those who make the current puch to gay marriages out to be some sort of civil rights crusade. Put simply, it isn't.

While there are some who disagree with me, I have yet to see compelling evidence that homosexuality is a part of a person's genetic makeup. If it were, would there be a large number of people who left the homosexual lifestyle? Think about it. Sure, you can insist that they're living contrary to their nature, but that's a weak argument at best.

Pushing homosexual rights as a civil rights issue is the Achilles Heel of the gay rights movement. Most people simply do not believe it to be a civil rights issue, and many, myself included, see the analogy as a slap in the face of great men such as Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and the many, many others, who fought, and often died, to ensure equality for minorities. I have yet to see a "straights only" lunch counter, or homosexuals being sent to the back of the bus. You aren't kicked out of public swimming pools, no governor is standing at the schoolhouse door to bar your entrance (before you play the "Ryan White" card, let me remind you that, while the school's actions were appalling, Ryan White was not gay), and there are no "Jim Crow" laws to bar you from voting. No poll taxes, and no "separate but equal" education (marriage and education are VASTLY different issues, by the way).

You see, I view homosexuality as a lifestyle CHOICE. And I support, and will continue to support, your right to make that CHOICE. I also believe that your CHOICE should extend to your right to make a public commitment to the partner of your CHOICE without shame or rebuke. As I have said before, I really don't see marriage as the proper domain of the government.

If you wish to change minds and rally people to your cause, you MUST respect the ideals and values upon which their beliefs are based. And that includes the perception they have about your lifestyle. If you focused on your rights to make a choice instead of your hardheaded insistence that we accept your crusade as a new civil rights movement, you would find a few more people in your corner.

Comments (Page 1)

latour999

on Jun 04, 2005

I have yet to see compelling evidence that homosexuality is a part of a person's genetic makeup.

I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why this matters. Religion isn't genetic. Just a thought

Ionolast

on Jun 04, 2005

"I have yet to see a "straights only" lunch counter, or homosexuals being sent to the back of the bus. You aren't kicked out of public swimming pools, no governor is standing at the schoolhouse door to bar your entrance"

Blacks are obviously "different."

ParaTed2k

on Jun 04, 2005

Blacks are obviously "different."

Anyone who thinks that many (not all, but many) homosexuals don't choose to display their "differences" have never spent much time around some of them. Go to a Gay Rights rally sometime, you will see a museum of Gay "stereotypes". ;~D

That being said, the biggest reason I think the Gay Marriage issue is not akin to the Civil Rights movement is, what is the Gay Marriage Activists out to protect?

When a Gay Marriage activist is being interviewed, the question of Plural Marriage and other "alternate" lifestyles comes up. Invariably they want to distance themselves from any other alternative lifestyle. "If the polygamists want to fight for their cause, they should be here arguing their case", is a common rebuttal to the question.

Well, did Rosa Parks say, "Well, we deserve to be able to choose where we want to sit, but keep them Irish, Rednecks and Mormons in the back where they belong!"

No, she made her statement with her gesture, and the Civil Rights movement fought for the equality of all under the law.

You can't cry "equality" out of one side of your mouth and blatantly exclude everyone but your demographic from the fight.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for the whole, "The government has no business sticking their nose in our relationship" argument. Since marriage is a contract between a couple and the government, it is pretty ironice to tell the government it has no right to be involved in a relationship as a means of insisting the government get involved in the relationship. ;~D

ParaTed2k

on Jun 04, 2005

Blacks are obviously "different."

gothcartman

on Jun 05, 2005

i respect your opinions but mus disagree with parts.well it is not as extreme as the segregation of blacks so long ago, its the same ideals on a granted,much, smaller scale. i also disagree with the coice issue (visit my link below)
i made a poston my views a couple days ago. it was my first post. check it out
https://www.politicalmachine.com/forums.asp?MID=3&CMID=259&AID=77288
its also in the us domestic section

Ionolast

on Jun 05, 2005

Anyone who thinks that many (not all, but many) homosexuals don't choose to display their "differences" have never spent much time around some of them

"Choose" being the keyword. They don't have to. Blacks have no choice.

dabe

on Jun 05, 2005

"Choose" being the keyword. They don't have to.

So you say. But, what the hell do you know? Though some gays may choose, most don't. It's an internal reponse to whatever stimulus they respond to. And so what? What if they do choose? So what? It's their choice. Does that mean they can be denied employment, housing, equal protection under the law, etc.? Also, who are we to judge that a person should be denied access to his/her partner's hospital room, health benefits, death benefits, whatever, just because those two happened to be partners for years, and they truly love eachother, and care for eachother, and pay taxes, work hard? It is definitely a civil rights issue. Equal rights for everyone. Period. No one is asking for special, or different, or more rights. Just equal rights. Civil rights. Period.

Who the hell are we to judge? That is what this is about. It's not about sitting at the back of the bus. It's not about being black or white or yellow or green. It's about societal fair play. Choice is what makes us free. Take away the choices and we've got nothing but a religion-based notion of what is acceptable in society, and that is unconstitutional. Those who would say it's not about their religious beliefs are fooling themselves. It's about somebody's religious beliefs, which permeated into your societal beliefs.

Saying that this not the same as being black is a specious argument, tantamount to a lie. Human rights are human rights are human rights.

Ionolast

on Jun 05, 2005

So you say. But, what the hell do you know?

This from the person who is repeatedly told that she's ignorant.

The Civil Rights movement was about skin color, not lifestyle.

Ionolast

on Jun 05, 2005

Though some gays may choose, most don't. It's an internal reponse to whatever stimulus they respond to. And so what? What if they do choose? So what? It's their choice.

I wasn't saying they choose to be gay, I was saying they choose to display it.

latour999

on Jun 05, 2005

Could it not be a recessive trait? Like with straight carriers of a gay gene?

Random Democrat

on Jun 05, 2005

I wasn't saying they choose to be gay, I was saying they choose to display it.

Do people who are straight "choose to display" that they are straight?

Why should one group of people be allowed to express themselves, but not another?

gothcartman

on Jun 05, 2005

Do people who are straight "choose to display" that they are straight?

they sure do. but being straight is the "norm" and many people are assumed to be so. its not obviuos that they're different but when you see a man and a awoman holding hands in the mall, thats a proclamation of their sexuality just as much as it is when gay people hold hands in the mall or wear shirts or have bumper stickers that proclaim their sexuality. some gays are proud (gay pride) and some view it as a peaceful protest against society. They have now come out with "Straight Pride" T-shirts. even as a huge supporter of gay rights i find this hilarious and just great. If straight people want to have a parade to embrace and shine the light on their sexuality, they should absolutely be allowed to do so. I think they dont because heterosexuality is such a common thing they dont see the need (perhaps - that was only a guess). Unfortunately, the do seem to feel the need to instead try to demonize, degrade, and otherwise harm homosexuality and things that homosexuals are fighting for

ParaTed2k

on Jun 05, 2005

Equal rights for everyone. Period. No one is asking for special, or different, or more rights. Just equal rights. Civil rights. Period.

This is my point Dabe. The gay marriage activists use the arguments for "Equal Rights", but then they say they don't care about the rights of anyone but Gay couples.

What if a man and 3 women love each other, or a woman and 3 men? If they are really in love, why shouldn't they be able to marry? What if a 25 year old teachers truly loves a 13 year old student? What if a father truly loves his daughter and want to marry?

The point is, Gay Marriage activists are not about "equality", they are about Gay Marriage. So, they should come out and say that that's all they are about. But that doesn't sound as compelling as "we just want equal rights for all" does it.

EmperorofIceCream

on Jun 05, 2005

Letr's suppose that 'gay' in this context means 'gay American citizen' (as opposed to gay Resident Aliens, gay illegal aliens, or gay citizens of somewhere else other than America).

Restricting the argument in this way immediately puts an end to debates over whether being homosexual is a matter of nature, nurture, or some combination of both. Whatever its origins, homosexuality is a form of sexual behaviour between citizens. As such, its nature is irrelevant when considering if homosexual citizens have a right to one form of social regulation of that behaviour - in this case, marriage.

It also puts an end to debates over whether or not being homosexual is a 'proper' civil rights issue or not. Because no American citizen of any sexual orientation has a right to marry. There is no Constitutional right to marry granted to anyone - marriage is a status closely regulated by government, denied to those whose blood relationship is deemed to be too close, to the mentally incapacitated, and to minors.

Gay American citizens have no right to marry. Neither do straight American citizens.

It could be argued that there is a natural right to marry, simply in virtue of gays being human. Natural Rights can be deduced from the basic natural conditions of human existence and apply to all human beings as such. There is, for instance, the natural right of the child to the care provided by its parents (and the natural obligation of the parents to provide that care).

There is the Natural Right, enshrined in the Constitution, to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.

But there is not and cannot be a Natural Right to participate in a social ritual which, by definition, is not natural but artificial and contingent upon the existence of a set of social circumstances which are themselves transient and impermanent.

So y'all can stop bitching over whether faggots have a right to marry. They don't.

They could be granted such a right by government. They could be granted a right to a ritual specific to the needs of homosexuals that would be unavailable to heterosexuals. But that would be a debate over whether such a right should be granted and the form it would take. And I doubt it would be conducted in an adult manner, just as this debate is not conducted in an adult manner.

I like living here, but I find Americans' obsession with who is fucking who childish, prurient, and vaguely disgusting.

People fuck. Get over it.

Random Democrat

on Jun 05, 2005

There is the Natural Right, enshrined in the Constitution, to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.

But there is not and cannot be a Natural Right to participate in a social ritual which, by definition, is not natural but artificial and contingent upon the existence of a set of social circumstances which are themselves transient and impermanent.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. They called Marriage a fundamental right. That was back in the 60s, when they struck down bans against interracial marriage.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!