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 4)

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 07, 2005

You want to see the Child Protection Services run amok, picture a CPS that is not required to recognize parental rights whatsoever

I hate to break it to you, para, but they're NOT required to recognize parental rights as it is.

Frankly, if you read ALL of my position papers, I advocate for the complete dissolution of CPS as it is.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 07, 2005

To the pedophile:
Your kid: "but daddy, I love him"
You: "Your only 10 years old and he's 40"
Pedophile: "You heard him, he loves me and I love him, who are you to deny our love for each other"
You: "I'm his father"
Your Kid: "Yeah, you're my dad, but what does that have to do with my love for him"
Pedophile: "C'mon, do you really want to stay with a dad who doesn't see we're in love"
Kid: "Nah, let's goin (turning to dad), if you really loved me, you'd understand".
You call cops: "A man has just taken off with my son"
Cop: "Sir, did your son go with him willingly, or was he forcibly taken".....

Did you not read my comments about consenting ADULTS? There's a very clear divide here.

OK, so you can advocate for the government deciding marriage. When the government (as leftists have repeatedly advocated) requires parental licensing, don't expect me to speak for you; I will probably be writing from exile somewhere.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 07, 2005

I have a friend who is bisexual, and according to him it is not a choice, but something that you have to live with, just like I didn't choose to be straight, it's jsut something that I have to live with.

Ahhh, so YOU have no "personal" experience, but somehow, YOUR opinion is more valid? SORRY, wrong answer!

I did not say conclusively that homosexuals aren't born that way, just that I have seen no compelling evidence. And in 50 responses, not one respondent has provided it.

As for the civil rights argument, please show me the "straights only" lunch counters. Sorry, I haven't seen them. If homosexual behaviour is kept to the bedroom, as ALL sexual behaviour SHOULD be (straight or gay), then there is no realistic way you can "tell" homosexuals from heterosexuals "on the street".

This is not, and will never be, a civil rights argument. It's about the rights of certain members of the community (homosexuals) to enforce their VALUES on others within the community (landlords, employers, etc), who, in this case, happen to constitute a majority.

If you read closely, I don't believe in denying rights to homosexuals based on their sexuality. But I WILL NOT accept the position that it's a "civil rights" issue.

DiseasedHumanity

on Jun 07, 2005

As for the civil rights argument, please show me the "straights only" lunch counters. Sorry, I haven't seen them. If homosexual behaviour is kept to the bedroom, as ALL sexual behaviour SHOULD be (straight or gay), then there is no realistic way you can "tell" homosexuals from heterosexuals "on the street".

I stated before, it is much more subtle now than it was when black segregation was taking place. And the fact is, sexual behavior is not kept to the bedroom in almost all cases, so that's not even an issue. We can't talk about "what-ifs" or "how it should be's" and expect to get anything done. We have to look at how it is now- and the fact is, you can tell homosexuals and heterosexuals apart on the streets because of their sexual behavior if nothing else.

And I have yet to see how that pertains to civil rights anyway.

Ahhh, so YOU have no "personal" experience, but somehow, YOUR opinion is more valid? SORRY, wrong answer!

Fine. I have no personal experience. Would you like me to get him to post and state what I just said? Would that make it more vaild for you? And in addition to that, can I ask if you made a conscious choice to be straight {assuming you are}? I'd assume it's the same thing. I did not make a conscious choice about my sexual preferences, and come to think of it, I don't believe it matters what sexuality you are in order to be able to make or not make that choice.

If you read closely, I don't believe in denying rights to homosexuals based on their sexuality. But I WILL NOT accept the position that it's a "civil rights" issue

And I can't make you. But I still believe firmly that it is, and there is no way that gay rights can ever be achieved if it is not a civil rights issue. If it isn't, than what is it? An issue based on values and lifestyle choices? Well then, I suggest you also start encouraging beastiality and incest, since those could be seen as lifestyle choices as well. Gay marriage is part of marriage, which is still a civil right.

Would the people claiming that marriage is a civil right please quote the constitutional amendment that made it so?

Ninth and tenth. Ninth says: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Rights of the people. Civil rights. Here's my source: Link

Cheers, Pads.

zinkadoodle

on Jun 07, 2005

So you support Nambla as well? By the statement above it sure indicates your acceptance of them.

The problem with nambla is that it breaks a host of laws concerning sex and children, rape being the most obvious. So, the comparison is really not very good. Tolerance of gays does not support breaking laws against children or any kind of rape. It's about consenting adults, and their own choices for their own lifestyles.

gothcartman

on Jun 08, 2005

I am the bisexual friend DH speaks of. it most certainly is NOT a choice. Validated? Good. also to the choice issue, I must ask you all to take a look back at latour's comment (#1). Latour said it best. This most certainly is a civil rights isssue. Marriage is a civil institution and has been deemed a "right" by the Sup. Court so dont think that just because there arent special restrooms for us, it isnt a civil rights issue. It most certainly is. I am for equal rights, but this isnt an equal rights issue. Its a Gay Marriage as a civil right issue. Its not a choice issue either. If we made it a choice issue that would be giving in to the very people we are up against on this particular issue and simply cannot do that (i understand that, technically, we can but we wont compromise that). So give us our Civil Right already. The 14th amendment says you must give it to us and all other consenting adults in similar situations. The 9th and 10th amendments back that up.

gothcartman

on Jun 09, 2005

come on... any responses now?

zinkadoodle

on Jun 09, 2005

Little_whip, why are you so judgmental? What is it about rights for gays which would possibly affect you and your life? What skin is it off your back if gays have the civil rights they are fighting for?

I agree with Latour. The Constitution calls marriage a civil right. It's only religion and self righteous believers that are trying to limit the civil rights of gays. In fact, this is very much an issue of equal protection under the law for all people, regardless of religion and creed and lifestyles. Your twisting of the Constitution to make your false argument is sorry, to say the least.

Gays are being denied rights and liberties, whether you chose to admit it or not. As I mentioned, they are not getting equal protection under the law. If a landlord chooses to not rent to someone because they are gay, that's discrimination. If an employer chooses to not hire someone because he or she is gay, that's discrimination. If a gay is beaten is he or she afraid to go to the police, because of possible harrassment? Absolutely!

There is nothing within the Constitution that would limit the rights of gays. In fact, the Constitution is about the issue of rights for all. It's not about limiting rights. In fact, if bush succeeded in pulling off his constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriages, that would be the very first such limitation of rights within the constitution for anyone based on their chosen lifestyle. It would set a horrific precedent.

I ask again - What skin is it off your back if gays are allowed to marry? I would suggest absolutely none at all, except your self rightous sense of your own religious beliefs.

drmiler

on Jun 09, 2005

#59 by zinkadoodle
Thursday, June 09, 2005

Little_whip, why are you so judgmental? What is it about rights for gays which would possibly affect you and your life? What skin is it off your back if gays have the civil rights they are fighting for?

I agree with Latour. The Constitution calls marriage a civil right. It's only religion and self righteous believers that are trying to limit the civil rights of gays. In fact, this is very much an issue of equal protection under the law for all people, regardless of religion and creed and lifestyles. Your twisting of the Constitution to make your false argument is sorry, to say the least.

Gays are being denied rights and liberties, whether you chose to admit it or not. As I mentioned, they are not getting equal protection under the law. If a landlord chooses to not rent to someone because they are gay, that's discrimination. If an employer chooses to not hire someone because he or she is gay, that's discrimination. If a gay is beaten is he or she afraid to go to the police, because of possible harrassment? Absolutely!

There is nothing within the Constitution that would limit the rights of gays. In fact, the Constitution is about the issue of rights for all. It's not about limiting rights. In fact, if bush succeeded in pulling off his constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriages, that would be the very first such limitation of rights within the constitution for anyone based on their chosen lifestyle. It would set a horrific precedent.

I ask again - What skin is it off your back if gays are allowed to marry? I would suggest absolutely none at all, except your self rightous sense of your own religious beliefs.

This shows that you don't pay a lot of attention yo-yo! Or else you would KNOW that LW has NO religious beliefs like you are portraying! She's not quite an atheist but she not a "christian" either! And irregardless of what you think, show me "where" in the constitution talks about marriage at all!

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 09, 2005

I am the bisexual friend DH speaks of. it most certainly is NOT a choice.

I still don't consider that conclusive proof, goth. What SHOULD be important to you is that even though I believe it is a choice, I support your right to MAKE that choice. In fact, it appalls me that nothing more than outright sanction of your values will suffice from my end.

I do not, and WILL not "bless" your chosen lifestyle. Ain't gonna happen. Your insistence that I do so is an unreasonable imposition on my values. As long as you continue to press for acceptance and condonation of your lifestyle, you will find yourself at odds with a certain segment of the population. If you press for acceptance and tolerance of your CHOICES, however, you have MY vote at least.

Sorry, goth, I will reiterate: This ain't Montgomery, and you ain't Rosa Parks!

Zoomba

on Jun 09, 2005

My stance on gay marraige is that if any service is provided by the government to a couple (i.e. two consenting adults) it should not be denied to any such pairing. If a man and a woman can receive such benefits and legal protections, it should be offered to two men or two women as well. Don't want it called marraige? Make the legal term for all unions "Civil Unions" Leave the same parental rights in there, leave the same protections and benefits, just change the name.

Want to be married? Go to a church, let the church hand out the title to who they see fit.

While not necessarily an issue of civil rights, it is an issue of equal application of the law not clouded by individual religious values. Christians are outraged at the attempt to pass laws and rules to limit the public display of their faith, or even in some cases to just practice their basic faith. They say how dare you deny me this because you disagree with my values? Yet they turn around and try to do the exact same thing here.

I think it's wrong for the gay rights people to try and force this as an issue of acceptance. You can't win acceptance on something people find fundamentally wrong. It's like trying to convince a moral vegan that they should learn to love hamburgers... it's just not going to happen and it's insulting to those you're trying to "convert". At best, you can demand that they tolerate your views and your lifestyle... and remember that tolerate does not mean accept, it just means they leave you alone about it. I do not generally accept really evangelical Christians, they strike me as exactly what's wrong with modern religion, but I tolerate them... They leave me alone and I leave them alone. This is a lesson that the gay activist groups could do well to learn.

DiseasedHumanity

on Jun 09, 2005

Reply #58 by little_whip:

That does not mean any person can just say "ok, since it isnt listed in the Constitution, and the Constitution doesn't limit "other" rights that may or may not be granted by the STATE, I can just do whatever I please because the Constitution doesn't forbid it?

Ah, yes it does. Power of the people. Any rights not verified in the Constitution but not strictly forbidden are unstated rights as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of another citizen.

And that includes marriage.

Reply #58 by little_whip:

Therefore, it is not a civil right

So...what is marriage in general{applying to anybody who wants to get married, not just gays/bis} then? A States Right? In that case, do the states have the power to forbid marraige to straights? Not meant as an argumentative question- only to see your views on the issue.

And to go off that, as another curiosity question, do any states actually legalize marriage in their personal Constitutions? I haven't read anything but the federal one so I'm unclear as to that.

Reply #59 by zinkadoodle:

I agree with Latour. The Constitution calls marriage a civil right.

No....the Supreme court defined marriage as Constitutional. The Constitution does not say it directly, but it is included in Amendment Nine and to some extent in Amendment Ten.

Reply #61 by little_whip:

Now, it you want to argue that gay marriage should be a Constitutional Right, I'd be happy to argue as to why it should or shouldnt. But you are arguing that it's already so, and it simply isnt

Ok, I'll take you up on that, since I doubt I've ever actually heard why you think what you do. So have at it. I'm at least interested.

Cheers, Pads

Dr Guy

on Jun 09, 2005

And latour is Canadian, hardly a constitutional expert.

Dr Guy

on Jun 09, 2005

Shhhhh! I am agreeing with you again! Just dont let it out.

drmiler

on Jun 10, 2005

Reply #59 by zinkadoodle:

I agree with Latour. The Constitution calls marriage a civil right.

No....the Supreme court defined marriage as Constitutional. The Constitution does not say it directly, but it is included in Amendment Nine and to some extent in Amendment Ten.

I'm sorry but your going to have to show proof of this. Because I think your wrong.

#65 by DiseasedHumanity
Thursday, June 09, 2005

Reply #58 by little_whip:

That does not mean any person can just say "ok, since it isn't listed in the Constitution, and the Constitution doesn't limit "other" rights that may or may not be granted by the STATE, I can just do whatever I please because the Constitution doesn't forbid it?

Ah, yes it does. Power of the people. Any rights not verified in the Constitution but not strictly forbidden are unstated rights as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of another citizen.

And that includes marriage.

That option was tried in a court of law and failed miserably

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!