Anti-Gay Marriage and the Black Church

[St. Widge]

It's not an emotional decision. It's question of whether Constitutional Rights are being violated. To claim that it is about emotion simply proves that you don't understand the issue.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by St. Widge

you don't understand the issue.

Widge, I'd like to introduce you to VVextreme.

[Taurus]

Originally Posted by VVextreme

I'm talking about perception versus reality. I'm talking about manipulation. Using people's emotions to influence their decisions.

The fact of the matter is that there is no way to logically prove either side, so this ultimately becomes an emotional decision. The anti-gay marriage crowd has the most compelling argument, but can't definitively prove this is morally wrong and should be illegal.

Therefore this crowd is resorting to illusion, marketing and just playing with your emotions like a grand piano. It's all a bunch of hot air on both sides, but it doesn't actually mean anything beyond the ability to manipulate people. Regardless of how many people you can convince with these strategies. It doesn't make something moral or immoral. Right or wrong. It's all subjective and no way to definitively prove any of this. In the absence of a divine authority such as a God, there is no right or wrong. Only opinions and bs.

But yet we continuously try to push this bs as if there was a way to prove any of it. But at the end of the day, there is absolutely zero fundamental difference between sticking it in a man and sticking it anything else you can think of beyond the # of people who support that sexual orientation.

Oh sure, they can draw as many cute cartoons as they want, mock it all they want and speak as convincingly as much as they can, but doesn't change the fact that it's all the same, it's all subjective, all just opinions of a bunch of people who don't really know anything.

You might as well fight over does spinach taste good or bad? It's all subjective and just boils down to do I want to live in a world of gay marriage or not. Depending on your emotions, you attach yourself to whatever rationalizations support it. So keep pretending like all of these "arguments" have meaning, but they don't. Neither side has any real meaning. Just opinions and emotions.

Here's the thing.

Logic is a lousy sales technique. It's a great foundation to build your technique on, but at the end of the day, customers get out their wallets (or pull the voting lever) based on emotion.

[antipop]

Originally Posted by VVextreme

Dude, can't take a joke? I was clearly just joking around there. But yea, let's take statements out of context that are clearly jokes and arbitrarily assign meaning to them. Well done you master context twister you.

But sadly it's just another warped PR tactic, the ole you did something wrong so we should be able to do something wrong too trick. I swear, it's like ya'll read from the same tired old playbook. Only problem with that flawed logic is that nobody can ever take a stand about anything EVER, because obviously no one is perfect. So anything goes, right? WRONG!

I already said I don't know what the heck I believe right now, but yet I can still see the irony and complete BS behind these clever marketing campaigns attempting to normalize outlandish behavior. You can use this same exact campaign for ANY issue and find enough people to "come out of the closet," then you can rationalize anything. Just label it "advancing civil rights" and all of a sudden it's enlightened and progressive and any other fun, edgy label you like. It's all bogus. None of it actually means anything beyond clever marketing ploys.

Regardless I can still enjoy the irony of this situation that both sides are now living. It's pure comic gold if you look at this issue without really caring what the outcome is. Sorry to shine the flashlight on your meaningless PR ploys, but then again... I'm not sorry at all.

so you enjoy lesbians??

[TulsaSaint]

Originally Posted by VVextreme

I already said I don't know what the heck I believe right now, but yet I can still see the irony and complete BS behind these clever marketing campaigns attempting to normalize outlandish behavior. You can use this same exact campaign for ANY issue and find enough people to "come out of the closet," then you can rationalize anything. Just label it "advancing civil rights" and all of a sudden it's enlightened and progressive and any other fun, edgy label you like. It's all bogus. None of it actually means anything beyond clever marketing ploys.

I feel dumber after reading this. People have debunked this silliness of yours a dozen times, on this thread and probably others. They've explained to you how relationships between two consenting adults are different from other types of "outlandish behavior" (relationships with kids, goats, toasters, etc.). Yet you keep on repeating it as though presenting us with a novel piece of rhetorical and logical brilliance.

I happen to agree that the gay rights movement is not exactly equivalent to the African American civil rights struggle, for a variety of reasons. I.e., it's possible (for many gay people) to remain in the closet and not have to suffer any overt discrimination. Most black people (except for a few light-skinned people who tried to "pass") never had this option. Gay people don't have to ride in the back of the bus, drink from separate water fountains, or use separate entrances to restaurants. Gay people don't get paid less money for equal work; if anything, we make more money than your average joe. Gay people aren't kept from voting by some sort of "polling gayness test." So, no, it's not the same.

Yet the lack of exact equivalency does not mean that it's not a civil rights struggle. The black civil rights movement is not the only conceivable type of civil rights struggle. Other marginalized groups may have an experience that differs from the general intensity or in the exact details of the black experience, but that doesn't mean the problems they experience are not real and don't profoundly affect their lives. When you can get fired from your job, denied Social Security survivor benefits for your spouse, be denied service in a restaurant, be unable to visit the person you love in the hospital, and be denied hundreds of other rights that everyone else takes for granted, all because of the consenting adult you choose to share your home and bed with, that's a civil rights issue.

You can deflect all you want. You can say you haven't decided for yourself while evidencing a profoundly bigoted attitude all you want. None of that convinces me that I don't deserve the same rights as you do, merely because of who I choose to sleep with in the privacy of my own home.

[VVextreme]

Originally Posted by St. Widge

It's not an emotional decision. It's question of whether Constitutional Rights are being violated. To claim that it is about emotion simply proves that you don't understand the issue.

You act as if there's a way to prove that constitutional rights are being violated or not. It's all opinion. If it WASN'T subjective, then we wouldn't need nine friggin justices on the Supreme Court and they would never revisit or redefine their past decisions. Furthermore it wouldn't matter if a Republican or a Democrat elected them to the court as they should all arrive at the same conclusion every single time.

Everyone buys into the illusion of the Supreme Court as if the label makes it more meaningful, but at the end of the day... it's just a bunch of people sitting around expressing their opinions.

Shoot, let's take it back to the very beginning. The constitution is just something written up by a bunch of white guys and adopted in 1787. It has also been amended 17 times for a total of 27 amendments. Even IT'S not the permanent gold standard of perfection many believe it to be. It's an evolving document that changes throughout time based upon the majority opinion of 3/4ths of the states. Again, their votes are all based upon subjective opinions. Every single part of that process is built upon the combined opinions of a large # of people, which obviously changes throughout time and based upon the sample polled.

Perhaps it's you, St. Widge, who doesn't really understand the issue as you fall under the illusion of the fancy words lawyers, marketers, politicians and everyone else utilizes to manipulate your beliefs, your actions, your thoughts to either promote conformity if you're the ruling party or promote division if you're the minority party in power.

And we act like all of this actually means something beyond what it really is once you boil away all the fluff and left with just an ounce of truth... this is all just a bunch of people's opinions of those in power about how our society should live and they are trying to manipulate the masses according to their particular agenda. That is ALL that is going on. To pretend it's more than that is just manipulative and dishonest. That's why I'm losing faith in people, because as was mentioned... logic is a poor tool to convince somebody into action. Using emotion is the only way to get them to pull the lever or purchase something or do what you want them to do.

[VVextreme]

Originally Posted by TulsaSaint

I feel dumber after reading this. People have debunked this silliness of yours a dozen times, on this thread and probably others. They've explained to you how relationships between two consenting adults are different from other types of "outlandish behavior" (relationships with kids, goats, toasters, etc.). Yet you keep on repeating it as though presenting us with a novel piece of rhetorical and logical brilliance.

I happen to agree that the gay rights movement is not exactly equivalent to the African American civil rights struggle, for a variety of reasons. I.e., it's possible (for many gay people) to remain in the closet and not have to suffer any overt discrimination. Most black people (except for a few light-skinned people who tried to "pass") never had this option. Gay people don't have to ride in the back of the bus, drink from separate water fountains, or use separate entrances to restaurants. Gay people don't get paid less money for equal work; if anything, we make more money than your average joe. Gay people aren't kept from voting by some sort of "polling gayness test." So, no, it's not the same.

Yet the lack of exact equivalency does not mean that it's not a civil rights struggle. The black civil rights movement is not the only conceivable type of civil rights struggle. Other marginalized groups may have an experience that differs from the general intensity or in the exact details of the black experience, but that doesn't mean the problems they experience are not real and don't profoundly affect their lives. When you can get fired from your job, denied Social Security survivor benefits for your spouse, be denied service in a restaurant, be unable to visit the person you love in the hospital, and be denied hundreds of other rights that everyone else takes for granted, all because of the consenting adult you choose to share your home and bed with, that's a civil rights issue.

You can deflect all you want. You can say you haven't decided for yourself while evidencing a profoundly bigoted attitude all you want. None of that convinces me that I don't deserve the same rights as you do, merely because of who I choose to sleep with in the privacy of my own home.

They've explained it, but that doesn't give it any MEANING beyond their opinions.

Let's boil down their arguments and take out all the fluff.

Basically they want the law to grant freedom to enter into "marriage" to any "consenting" "adult(s.)"

Ok awesome. Sounds nice on paper, doesn't it? Sounds official. Sounds like that just solves everything. Except when you look deeper into it.

Define "consent."

Define "adults."

Define "marriage."

Ok, well group A doesn't like your definitions. Group B thinks you are a hater and a bigot for your definitions.

Even the DEFINITIONS themselves are subjective in your own "logic." You haven't proven anything beyond typing more words that are defining your OPINION on this matter. And all of these arguments are just an attempt to manipulate others into either voting for you or not expressing their opinions on the subject.

No matter what you decide, there are going to be groups of people who believe you hate them, your bigots, you're racist, you're oppressing their religion, and all the other emotionally charged attacks on people who were "born that way."

But here's another thing ya'll haven't factored into the equation yet. Our history has a long-standing tradition of allowing duels between two consenting adults, for instance. However it is our country's opinion that we are better off restricting people's freedom by no longer allowing them to participate in an activity they wish to pursue. There are countless other "freedoms" that we no longer allow our citizens to pursue in this country either, because our majority rules opinion feels this is better for our country.

It is a civil rights fight. But the assumption that ALL civil rights fights are for the good of the country is an incorrect one. Everyone wants the freedom to do whatever they want, but sadly I've come to learn that living in a society means determining how much freedom you want to give up for the good of the country. I didn't really understand this until the terrorists started attacking us and more and more of our freedoms started getting stripped. I didn't understand this until democrats started screwing with their labels and we couldn't even agree that they were terrorists. Now I'm not equating homosexuals to terrorists, don't waste our time by mentioning this. I'm just stating how I'm starting to realize that even our own very words are subjective and manipulative and not even meaningful.

And watching the change in our culture as people are no longer able to express their opinions due to political correctness is another example of breaking up the enemy to expand "civil rights." This exact same playbook can be used to expand civil rights on any subject if they have a large enough representation and the right influential people over a long enough time pursue it.

[Optimus Prime]

I'm curious to see that the curch reaction will be now that Obama has come out in support of gay marriage.

[krushing]

There are many fiscal conservative republicans (libertarian like) who are liberal on social issues. You can't fit everything you want into two parties. There will always be "contradictions" like this with a two party system. Abortion and the black church are exactly the same and they ignore that.