Tax funded Christian colleges in California are whining because they no longer can discriminate (Christianity, Satan)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Back in the 50's Blacks had the right to sit at their section of the counter also. What was all the fuss about?
I've said it many times: It is not legit to compare immuatable traits such as the race of ones parents or what country one was born in, with things that can be (and often are) switched up and changed like sexual predilections.
Add to "Sexual Predilections" the category "Religious Affiliation".
These should never be protected classes in the same way things that cannot ever change like race and ethnicity are.
Any laws that do that are messed up...and so are the legislators and judges that create or back those laws.
Comparing sexual and religious preferences to things like race and ethnicity is a bogus as conflating homosexuality with incest, pedophilia, and beastiality.
In my opinion.
What have we here? You found an article on a conservative website and now you're going order your fellow posters around. That's not very friendly, Jeff.
Some of us don't need to read about it. Some of us remember when conservatives held up their Bibles and told people they couldn't sit at the counter. Or vote.
In 2016 conservatives are holding up their Bibles and trying to deny civil rights to the LGBT community. If that's you....be prepared to lose. LGBT Americans will NOT be denied their civil rights because you're unhappy.
And I should believe him because...... ? This is one mans opinion. Civil rights regardless of community is still civil rights. He has a problem because they were not called African American rights, and thinks that somehow makes a difference with LGBTQ having the same rights.
LGBTQ and African Americans, and Jeff have the same rights. Regardless of your erotic activities.
LGBTQ, and minorities have the same erotic activities you have, Jeff. They simply want the rest of the rights you enjoy.
I would like to know your erotic activities and how they apply to the civil rights you have. You seem to think they are somehow important.
Welcome to CA that is all I have seen since moving here...nothing but entitlement whiners. This does not surprise me in the least. The way this state is run is pure rubbish on so many levels.
I have also never come across as many bible thumpers in my entire life!!!!! And I am from the South!
I had a work colleague who was a very good and helpful person,,and also a very strong man of Christian Faith.
He once told me, if there is a dooms day, it will start with California.
And I should believe him because...... ? This is one mans opinion. Civil rights regardless of community is still civil rights. He has a problem because they were not called African American rights, and thinks that somehow makes a difference with LGBTQ having the same rights.
LGBTQ and African Americans, and Jeff have the same rights. Regardless of your erotic activities.
LGBTQ, and minorities have the same erotic activities you have, Jeff. They simply want the rest of the rights you enjoy.
I would like to know your erotic activities and how they apply to the civil rights you have. You seem to think they are somehow important.
Discuss.
Not sure if there is any scientific evidence to it but babies/toddlers and small children seem to have a natural need of a mother. It's also observable in the animal kingdom.
In many social set ups around the world, when two hetrosexual couples split, the judges usually let the mother have the kids custody due to kids natural need of a mom.
Now, to me personally, it doesn't sit too well with my conciousness when I imagine two gay men adopting a baby.
What's the baby's fault that he/she is given to two gay men against his natural need of a mother? Where is the baby's consent that goes against his/her natural need of a mother?
Gay men can do whatever the they want in their erotic activities and they should have rights like everyone else, but adopting a child is something that should come after a lot of thought.
Personally, I won't let my child or grandchild being adopted by two gay men. I guess you should be OK with it?
So aside from the language used - (how often semantic fiddling -which logical fallacy the atheist has to expose - is used in theist - agenda polemics) surely whether you talk of Racial equality or gay rights, the campaign is the same, or at least makes the same claim to validity.
But suppose that it isn't about rights, or the legal status of 'marriage' but about moral approval of "homosexuality" (which shows up their agenda, shore'nuff ). Which doen't mean their argument is invalid, of course.
So is Gay rights different from the Civil Rights campaign? Was that really about the rights of blacks to have equality with whites or about the moral rightness of racial equality? That surely shows up the miserable substance of the argument (that they are not at all alike) being made, and it is significant that they don't seem to have anything better.
p.s It is also revealing, but pretty much par for the course of Fundamentalist Christian polemic (usually incorporating Creationism) that this is held up by Jeff as "Excellent". Not because it is anything more than a twiglet abbatis thrown up to try to hold back the surge of Gender rights, but because it is making the sort of soap -box noises he wants to hear.
And I still lluv it here.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-26-2016 at 05:38 AM..
Stop comparing it it to the civil rights era. That's just a crutch. Excellent article explaining the truth behind such comparisons:
Quote:
When our country began to grant full civil rights to black Americans, the moral statement we made was that African-Americans must be treated as the human beings they are.
When we gave marriage rights to same-sex couples, the moral statement we made was that homoeroticism was worthy of moral celebration.
There are some who, like our vice president, think gay marriage is morally equivalent to historic civil rights victories for African-Americans. The effect of this is to say that the belief that African-Americans are human, and should be treated as such, is ethically equivalent to the belief that same-sex erotic activities are worthy of moral celebration.
That’s obviously wrong—to understate things badly again.
Regardless of one’s views on marriage or homosexuality, civil rights and gay rights cannot rationally be viewed as occupying the same level of moral import. To suggest that they do is to err at the deepest level of human ethical reasoning.
The article you chose to quote is so biased that it can't even be considered a journalism source.
Here are some examples:
The article said:
When our country began to grant full civil rights to black Americans, the moral statement we made was that African-Americans must be treated as the human beings they are.
When we gave marriage rights to same-sex couples, the moral statement we made was that homoeroticism was worthy of moral celebration.
What it SHOULD have said was:
When our country began to grant full civil rights to black Americans, the moral statement we made was that African-Americans must be treated as the human beings they are.
When we gave marriage rights to same-sex couples, the moral statement we made was that same-sex couples must be treated as the human beings they are.
The article said:
There are some who, like our vice president, think gay marriage is morally equivalent to historic civil rights victories for African-Americans. The effect of this is to say that the belief that African-Americans are human, and should be treated as such, is ethically equivalent to the belief that same-sex erotic activities are worthy of moral celebration.
What it should have said was:
There are some who, like our vice president, think gay marriage is morally equivalent to historic civil rights victories for African-Americans. The effect of this is to say that the belief that African-Americans are human, and should be treated as such, is ethically equivalent to the belief that gays and lesbians are human, and should be treated as such.
The bias was so obvious that the source is completely discredited.
And I should believe him because...... ? This is one mans opinion. Civil rights regardless of community is still civil rights. He has a problem because they were not called African American rights, and thinks that somehow makes a difference with LGBTQ having the same rights.
LGBTQ and African Americans, and Jeff have the same rights. Regardless of your erotic activities.
LGBTQ, and minorities have the same erotic activities you have, Jeff. They simply want the rest of the rights you enjoy.
I would like to know your erotic activities and how they apply to the civil rights you have. You seem to think they are somehow important.
Discuss.
A person's activities has nothing to do with your humanity. It's an activity. Not a defining unchangeable human trait. Discriminating against left handed people is a comparison that works. LGBTQ is nothing but a man made classification. No different than if I suddenly declared that pizza lovers should be a protected class of citizens.
Not sure if there is any scientific evidence to it but babies/toddlers and small children seem to have a natural need of a mother. It's also observable in the animal kingdom.
In many social set ups around the world, when two hetrosexual couples split, the judges usually let the mother have the kids custody due to kids natural need of a mom.
Now, to me personally, it doesn't sit too well with my conciousness when I imagine two gay men adopting a baby.
What's the baby's fault that he/she is given to two gay men against his natural need of a mother? Where is the baby's consent that goes against his/her natural need of a mother?
Gay men can do whatever the they want in their erotic activities and they should have rights like everyone else, but adopting a child is something that should come after a lot of thought.
Personally, I won't let my child or grandchild being adopted by two gay men. I guess you should be OK with it?
If I had not choice, and two gay men adopted my grandchild, we would become family. They would have my full support, and I would be an awesome Grandmother. The child would have at least three sets of Grandparents and triple the love.
Children need love. Children need to be nurtured. Children need family.
Your argument falls flat. Men have been raising their children without their mother. Mom dies, leaves, get sick. None of that is the baby's fault. That leaves the upbringing to Dad.
Are men that incapable in your world?
Men, straight or gay are quite capable of raising great children. I think it is sad that men believe other men are incapable when it comes to children. The only thing they cannot do is breast feed. But, there are ways to purchase Mother's Milk through organizations.
Do you have the same concerns for two women adopting a child?
I believe if a couple puts their children first they are capable of shared custody. Shared custody is becoming more common, because men are tired of not having access to their children. It is a terrible emptiness for both men, and women who do not have access to their children.
Once you have children, you are family forever even if you divorce.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I am from the South! 
). Which doen't mean their argument is invalid, of course. 
Was that really about the rights of blacks to have equality with whites or about the moral rightness of racial equality? That surely shows up the miserable substance of the argument (that they are not at all alike) being made, and it is significant that they don't seem to have anything better.
