I don't think Blacks and Whites should get married!!

[KansasVoter]

But I love black people and some of my best friends are black people!

But Blacks and Whites getting married is not normal!

And don't you dare call me racist!!!

[IndianaJones]

1. how about civil unions? nt.

[LaydeeBug]

95. Oooh...yeah..."separate but equal" THAT works REAL WELL. nt

[No Elephants]

121. How many times does it have to be said? Civil union is neither marriage nor equal rights.

[mckara]

2. Is Kansas is a Time Warp?

[Dragonfli]

3. For as long as I can remember the definition has always been one white man one white woman, why

If we let them change the meaning of this institution, next thing you will know, there will be blacks marrying whites, and jews marrying blacks and dogs having sex with kittens!

We must protect my marriage from this evil!

On edit/ it has already begun I see! I thought someone was advocating the rights of blacks to marry blacks! See how fast the evil evolves? What other rights will they want if we allow them this one?

[Kahuna]

36. You're argument is so wrong on so many levels. But if I correct you..

I'd start a flame war, so I'll let it drop.

[LostinVA]

101. Hey, reasonable people can disagree on this subject

[No Elephants]

124. True, but only if they're both bigots. (Hey, some bigots CAN reason. They simply reach the

wrong conclusion.)

[El Supremo]

4. This should be interesting

:popcorn:

[Sultana]

11. Yep

[TomInTib]

5. Heck, I don't think ANYONE should get married.

Talk about a sub-prime deal.

Given the odds of failure, looking at the true failure rate, no banker would lend money on a marriage.

But lawyers love marriage. At least, mine certainly did.

[knixphan]

33. (suppressing laughter)

:toast:

[biscotti]

6. Surely you jest

[nsd]

7. You might want to add the "sarcasm" thingy, just in case.

People on this board tend to be irony-impaired.

[Fire1]

8. You certainly have a right to your opinion.

[Joe the Liberal]

9. I know it's insane I tell ya.............

In fact I have an interesting story, A couple of protesters dropped by my church the other day saying that blacks SHOULD be able to marry white people :wow:. I turned the other cheek as the bible says and served them all water and doughnuts.


















EDIT: for :sarcasm: do I even need to add this?

[IndianaGreen]

14. There you go! Give them donuts before you discriminate against them!

Why didn't the Nazis think of giving donuts to their victims? :crazy:

[Dragonfli]

15. God will bless your Sweet tolerance as long as you vote RIGHT behind their backs.

I always forget that tag myself but when I use sarcasm it is so overboard only a moran could miss it.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Perhaps you care to give the invocation at Obama's Inaugural

We need to reach out to everyone, you know!

:popcorn:

[Starry Messenger]

12. just a sec.

[Horselover Fat]

13. tell us how you really feel!

[jaysunb]

40. Welcome to DU

I like your sense of humor.( the, in before the lock, thingy ) :rofl:

[FarLeftRage]

16. IBTL!!!

:popcorn:

[NMMNG]

17. I notice how few people are getting it

Sad. Really, really sad.

[Solon]

19. Sarcasm is considered a higher form of humor, it passes right over the heads of idiots. n/t

[IndianaJones]

23. imagine how I feel. nt.

[Solon]

24. You know, when you first joined the board, I had to read all your responses...

before I could really understand the sarcasm, even I can be an idiot sometimes. :dunce:

[SwampG8r]

66. hahahah ok that broke me up

[Fire1]

20. Oh, I got it! Thus, my response.

[Starry Messenger]

21. It is sad. But not surprising.

Unfortunately.

[KansasVoter]

26. I guess it was not obvious enough!! :-)

[Jamastiene]

32. I know.

Replace black and white with gay people and it boils down to what a lot of people have been saying about gay people. They don't know us.

[otohara]

46. Early Sign of Dementia

there was a report that came out a couple of weeks ago. When people don't recognize sarcasm, it's an early sign of dementia.

[mondo joe]

52. If you'd told me this would happen, I'd never have believed it.

I didn't think so many posters were so clueless.

[Crunchy Frog]

59. There often seems to be a poor grasp of subtlety on this board. n/t

[mondo joe]

65. Even when you point it out, IN THE THREAD.

:crazy:

[BlueJac]

18. Ok, I won't call you a racist....

feel better?

[Pisces]

22. Moron is a better name for you.

[Aviation Pro]

27. Phish....

...is a better name for you. The OPs intent was a stab at ironic humor.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

56. Ah...

That poster is on my Ignore list for a reason. Lack of sarcasm is a prime reason for getting put there. I bet I can guess who it is.

[Aviation Pro]

25. Need the sarcasm tag here for the humor impaired.....

....

[Solon]

28. I don't think they lack humor, but intelligence instead.

Just my opinion. :shrug:

[anigbrowl]

77. Hell no, these threads are entertaining.

Plus it lets me know which people are too dense to argue with.

[AspenRose]

29. Actually, there are still quite a few people who feel this way.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joe the Liberal]

41. This thread is filled with...........SARCASM!!!!

How come so many people don't see it? The OP forgot the :sarcasm: in his post, or he must have thought he didn't need it because it's so obvious. This is ironic humor no need to alert anyone.

[Crunchy Frog]

60. Sarcasm was the prime weapon of Doug Piranha

of the notorious Piranha Brothers. In the wrong hands, it's a deadly weapon. Grown men used to tear their own heads off in order to avoid it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhV856sXf3w

[AspenRose]

137. .

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=6204853

All the equal rights in the world didn't save the lives of these two people. And my point in sharing is that this shouldn't be framed as an either/or type of situation. Discrimination, hatred and bigotry is ugly in ALL its forms, no exceptions.

[Ozma]

30. And while we're at it, let's go back to the days of Jim Crow ... things were

so much more simple then, everybody knew their place. No uppity folks like this new guy with the funny African name wanting to be President.

(Do I need to put a sarcasm icon here?)


:sarcasm:

[Jamastiene]

37. With this bunch? Yeah.

I don't know what it is, but the interpretation of sarcasm has become a lost art as more and more people leave.

[mondo joe]

50. You can be for equal rights for all races, but marriage is a religious institution and you

can't force things like this on churches.

[Ozma]

97. Obviously you didn't get the memo. Marriage is a

legal status. This has nothing at all to do with your religion.

I'm sorry if you missed the last few hundred years of US Legal history,based upon hundreds more years of English Common Law.

[mondo joe]

98. Of course it is a legal status. But so many people feel so strongly about it from a religious

perspective. Couldn't interracial couples just have a different name for a similar institution?

[Me.]

31. Well....

Once we agree that the black/white thing is a problem unless you're talking checkerboards or a black/white diamond pattern on a floor, can we get onto the dog versus cats thing (and not in the way the poster up thread mentioned) cause some families think they can have both in the same house. Now...what is that about?

[Jamastiene]

35. Heretics!

A dog and a cat in the same house. Pfft! They had better fall to their knees and pray for forgiveness now. They had better hope they do it before they meet St. Peter, find out he's a giant cat, and he asks them why they fed him nothing but cold dry cereal while they dog got bits of bacon. It's BLASPHEMY, I tell ya.

[Me.]

42. What Are They Thinking?

[Kahuna]

34. All of the mixed race children in America says it must be normal. Anatomy 101.

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

48. Anatomy doesn't have the rewarded with legal status.

:hi:

[boppers]

39. Do you "say this as a black person"?

[LostinVA]

103. Reasonable people can disagree on this subject

[rucky]

43. You'd be alot more convincing if you had a really wordy rationalization.

with links and anecdotes and whatnot.

[SweetieD]

44. Now I remember why I stopped coming to DU for several weeks.

All this stupid Race is exactly like Sexuality posts. You will never get it.

[LostinVA]

104. You know, this is a subject reasonable people can disagree on

Why can't you "get" a differing opinion? Are you raelly that blind and intolerant of others???

[GreenInNC]

45. This ought to get KansasVoter all riled up.....

my inter racial sister in law married my brother who is from Kansas,

[BlooInBloo]

47. Do they vote?

:P

[polichick]

49. I don't think Blacks and Hispanics should get married...

I mean, come on, enough is enough.

(Or whites and Native Americans either. :P )

[QueenOfCalifornia]

51. I know you

are being sarcastic. But there are some people here who do not have the gene that allows them to appreciate sarcasm.

Good luck with your OP. :) :toast:

[mondo joe]

53. Interracial couples don't need marriage to be sexually gratified.

I don't know why they can't just live together without the bourgeois need for approval.

[Neecy]

71. +1

[anigbrowl]

78. I keep saying that too, but she keeps going on about wanting a ring

[mondo joe]

100. You can get her a ring without changing the definition of marriage.

No one needs to be married to wear a ring. :-)

[sohndrsmith]

177. mondo joe, your comment hit me like a brick hit Krazy Kat... is this

something worth noting - or am I just sleep deprived...?

== I wrote this and am not sure if it's worthy of posting... but I'm doing it anyway.. Here goes...

What immediately came to mind is that the Prop 8 issue is not a legal condemnation of same-sex-couple SEX, just the rights and privileges of marriage that are normally enjoyed... no?

Clearly, many - okay, most who oppose SSM think SSSex is wrong, immoral, and so on. But if they condemn SSM, are they not promoting pre-marital, extra-marital sex... in general? I thought that was the whole beef with the thing to begin with, yet it has nothing to do with the legal rights of marriage (don't give me the consummate the marriage garbage, that's not a legal prerequisite and is not regulated or verified by legal agencies (thank goodness). Besides, if it were a requirement, does that mean that the Iraq War vet who is paralyzed from the shoulders down and cannot have sex - or lost body parts when hit by an IED - is disqualified for marriage?

So - sex is okay with the Prop8ers as long as it doesn't come with the perks of normal, long-term, committed partnerships created out of love and to form a union, family and even for the further cooperative effort of raising a child in a healthy, balanced household? Oh, it's okay to adopt and raise children if one is gay/lesbian... but you can't come in the hospital room if your partner is dying after a massive car accident? And there is no outcry to regulate "sex", just legal (primarily fiscal - surprise, surprise, among other things of course...) aspects they are adamant about refusing.

In so doing, there seems to be an implicit acceptance of the sexual partnerships of same sex couples in denying the right and reality of formal, legal marriage.

How do you spell hypocrisy? P_r_o_p_8 is one way...

maybe my argument is severely flawed... when I've gotten some sleep I will be able to punch up the key components I've forgotten here. But there is something to it that is just so contradictory in it's essence that it's just stunning. Or at least it could be offered as such by someone with better debating skills than I have.

Am I just a blathering idiot or is there a scintilla of a point in here? Hm... needs more critical thinking when I'm more awake, perhaps...

[stray cat]

54. I'll just call you powerless with your single opinion - now if you get 100 million people behind you

I might get worried.

[leftofthedial]

55. I agree.

I think we should have Strom Thurmond give the inaugural invocation too. That would be inclusive.

Too bad he's dead. :-(

[awoke_in_2003]

57. "Too bad he's dead"

Nah, it would probably be more interesting.

[leftofthedial]

58. That's a good point.

Why should we exclude the dead?

We could invite Jefferson Davis. Or maybe Adolf (he really did some wonderful things for the trains).


Then the Obama could *really* reach across the aisle.

[mondo joe]

61. Fucking zombie haters. Don't they realize the percentage of people who are dead?

We've got to reach out.

[leftofthedial]

64. Zombophobes!

I'm so disappointed.

[ieoeja]

142. I hate being so anal that I insert a non-joke here, but ...

... the saying goes, "Mussolini made the trains run on time", not Hitler.

[leftofthedial]

147. Well Hitler did other things with trains...

smartypants.

[CLANG]

62. If you really believe that, then yes, you are a RACIST!

[mondo joe]

63. I'm told some people have religious reasons for being opposed, and they are not

opposed to rights for people of all races - just not this.

[LoZoccolo]

67. And I'm sure calling you a bigot will change your mind! n/t

[bluedawg12]

75. It's not bigotry, many in society still don't approve of it. n/t

[xiamiam]

68. bullshit..racist bullshit...nt

[anigbrowl]

79. So many lulz, so little time!

[stillcool]

69. I don't think blacks should be citizens either...

I don't think blacks should be able to vote either. What else can I take away from blacks so that gay people in my state can marry? OOPS..Gays can get married in my state. But really, shouldn't blacks go back to Africa?:sarcasm: Oops...I forgot the Jews!

[ecstatic]

70. I think a lot of people think that

The only difference being that hardly anyone thinks it should be illegal.

[Lost-in-FL]

72. How about blacks and dutch-latino-atheists couples? nt

[AntiFascist]

73. Excellent...

then can we at least agree that my gay marriage is as valid as that of Obama's parents?

[Egnever]

74. Its your right to think that if you want to.

Doesn't mean you are right.

you are allowed to believe that if you wish.

[bullwinkle428]

76. It makes me feel "icky"...therefore, it MUST. NOT. HAPPEN!

:crazy: :sarcasm: :crazy: :sarcasm:

:crazy: :sarcasm: :crazy: :sarcasm:

:crazy: :sarcasm: :crazy: :sarcasm:

[Redstone]

80. Well-posted. (I got what you were trying to say.)

Redstone

[shellgame26]

81. attempt at sarcasm or freudian slip

Okay out with it..Many gays are racist! There, I said it. What you, and many here have demonstrated is your misguided attempt to blame blacks for prop. 8's passing and the Warren invitation just adds more fuel to the fire. Yes, it's true, there are many blacks who are church-going conservatives who do not believe in gay rights. "HOw could they"? you say, "after the discrimination they faced!"

The cold hard truth is that civil rights for whoever has to be fought for tooth and nail, it involves TRYING TO CHANGE PEOPLE'S MINDS, including bigots like Warren. It is easy to find a scapegoat. Black people are used to being scapegoated.

And save yourself the "OH you just don't get sarcasm" crap. You are obviously trying to make a point sacasm or not AND I GET IT.

[AntiFascist]

83. So what if the poster is racist?

This is a free country and people are allowed to be racist. Some churches are protective of racists, they even preach that faiths identified primarilly with other races are inferior. This is primarilly a right-wing Christian nation, racism is ingrained in our culture and an important part of our cultural history. How dare you deny racists the opportunity to speak out!

On edit: shouldn't we be reaching out to racists instead of trying to strike them down?

:rofl:

[bluedawg12]

86. The OP wants to justify bigotry against gays and has done a good job.

:evilgrin:

It's our fault for not reaching out! :rofl:

[bluedawg12]

84. No you don't get it at all. Civil rights is NOT about changing opinions.

It's about justice and changing laws.

"Miscegenation. The word is humpbacked, ugly, portending a monstrous outcome: like antebellum or octoroon, it evokes images of another era, a distant world of horsewhips and flames, dead magnolias and crumbling porticos.

And yet it wasn’t until 1967 - three years after Dr. King received the Nobel Peace Prize, a time when America had already begun to weary of black demands for equality, the problem of discrimination presumably solved - that the Supreme Court of the US would get around to telling the state of Virginia that its ban on interracial marriages violated the Constitution. "
Source: Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p. 11 Aug 1, 1996 "

[pipi_k]

119. But before you can change laws

you have to change opinions.

Laws don't just create themselves, as far as I know...

People of certain opinions vote for people who hold similar opinions who then enact certain laws.

Changed opinions = changed laws

[racaulk]

132. Yep, schools were integrated because that's what white people WANTED.

Surely, public opinion at the time had turned such that racial integration in public schools was seen as desireable and necessary.

And Brown v. Board of Education was just a needless formality.

[stillcool]

139. and all those years..

since blacks were given the right to citizenship, and the right to vote in 1868 had nothing to do with it...it all came about because of Brown vs Board of Education. And here I thought there it was a matter of struggle and progress..who knew?

[ieoeja]

144. Are *you* being sarcastic?

Because polls taken at the time of Loving said 68% of Americans opposed the ruling. The number opposed to intragender marriage today is substantially lower than the number opposed to interracial marriage then.

[bluedawg12]

150. The laws are in the CONSTITUTION understanding that helps.

Then, there is no need for concern that gays need to change the entrenched homophobia any more than passing AA civil rights laws waited for the nation to change from racial bigotry.

[HamdenRice]

94. Word!

That's basically what's been happening ever since Prop 8 was passed. It's an excuse for racists to use the "N word," make "ni**er jokes," joke about slavery and so on.

And if you call them on it, they say it's just the use of sarcasm to get their point across.

Well, the freudian dog whistle part of the point has been very clearly gotten across.

[LostinVA]

110. Shouldn't we be reaching out to racists instead of trying to strike them down?

PE Obama himself believes in this.

[HamdenRice]

112. Thanks for admitting you are a racist!

But you and I both knew that.

And don't go whining that I'm calling you a racist; the admission is implicit in your reply.

[LostinVA]

118. How is being inclusive being racist??? You must think PE Obama is racist then

Weird thought for someone on this board to ahve.

:shrug:

I have to go do something now, but I do hope you quit being so blind to differing POVs and realize we have to reach out to others, as PE Obama has asked us to, or we can never, ever defeat racism in this country.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

164. Wow, you're so sensitive.

You should reach out to racists and make them your friends:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8031012&mesg_id=8031364

[Starbucks Anarchist]

163. But you don't have a problem reaching out to racists:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8031012

[mondo joe]

99. Angry posts likes yours are not going to change any hearts or minds. You need to be more patient,

and reach out to others and they will gradually become more sympathetic.

[LostinVA]

105. What in the world is wrong with a differing viewpoint?

We're all Americans who can find common ground and move forward.

[Beacool]

82. I was talking to someone and he came up with a good analogy.

Obama asking Warren to give the invocation is as provocative and offensive to his base as if a Republican PE asked Al Sharpton to give the invocation at his inauguration.

:-(

[TahitiNut]

85. Mother? Is that you?

How'd you figure out how to use my computer?

[Umbram]

87. *yawn* (eom)

[FrenchieCat]

88. Do you think Black People should have the right to Vote

at least? Just wondering. :sarcasm:

[Trajan]

89. It is not an apt analogy ....

The arguments against each are quite different ...

Your anger is noted ....

[AntiFascist]

90. Please explain...

legal scholars have cited the overturn of miscegenation laws (hope I spelled that right) in defending gay marriage.

[pecwae]

91. I love it when these things just zoom over

so many heads. Maybe they can at least see the point if someone explains it to them.

K&R

[last_texas_dem]

96. Yeah

The percentage of this board that is apparently sarcasm-impaired surprises me every time...

[pecwae]

102. Wow, you've been here forever!

Very good to meet you:toast:

[last_texas_dem]

154. Hey!

It's nice to meet you, too. :toast:

[and-justice-for-all]

92. Marriage should be banned...

whats the point? Have you seen the divorce rate? Civil Unions for all..

[HamdenRice]

93. Your racist dog whistling is duly noted...

recorded and circulated.

[LostinVA]

106. What in the world is wrong with offering a different point of view on here?

We're all Americans who can find common ground and move forward.

[HamdenRice]

107. Thanks for proving my point!

You seem to think that by making racist statements, you somehow convince others to your point of view.

How's that working for you?

The GLBT community in California is preparing to reach out to the African American community. I suggest you join the effort, and go door to door with your dog whistling as your contribution to the effort. Report back here about how effective you were!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LostinVA]

108. You really are blind to how ignoring differeng POVs will cause Obama to fail

Whoa! I never expected such intolerance on DU.

You really are clueless, btw. WHOOSH.

[HamdenRice]

111. How's your tactic working for you?

So let me get this straight. You make racist statements on DU and cause lots of people who supported you to be alienated.

That's going to make Obama change his mind? What's your theory? Racist statements on DU will get Obama's attention? You believe Obama reads DU and worries about the debate here?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

No you are the clueless one!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8024988&mesg_id=8026816

And it's spelled "differing."

[LostinVA]

113. Well, I haven't made any racist statements -- I'm not a racist at all

My point is: Why should we drive racists away instead of trying to find common ground with their POV.

Are you THAT against him before he's even taking office. Whoa.

[HamdenRice]

115. " I'm not a racist at all"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And I bet some of your best friends are Negroes!

[LostinVA]

117. No, I'm not -- why do you equate inclusiveness with racism???

[AntiFascist]

155. I think the obvious point is....

if we are going to reach out to theocratic bigots then we might as well be reaching out to the Palin-supporting racists, most of the time they go together anyway. Why pick and choose?

[Marrah_G]

138. Why waste your time arguing with that poster

You are better then that LiV.

[ThomCat]

171. He really is surprisingly, disappointingly clueless

and very stuborn about it. :(

I hate to say it, because I've met him in person and he's a nice guy, but you're wasting your time talking to him. He has a high tolerance for homophobia, and he really isn't going to learn to care.

[LostinVA]

109. People really are clueless on this thread, aren't they?

[LanternWaste]

123. I thought I was the most clueless guy on DU.

Speaking from experience, I thought I was the most clueless guy on DU.

That would appear not to be the case these days... :P

[LostinVA]

129. hehehehe -- hey, I didn't think you had internet this week?!

[LanternWaste]

136. I was called into work...

I was called into work early on Monday, and being the dutiful little soldier that I am...

Actually, I jumped at the chance-- holiday pay for Monday & Tuesday, with only about 10% of the normal workload. I think management simply wanted a warm body in my department, just in case or something.

So I've been catching up on e-mails, news, pretending to be important and wandering onto the sales floor dipping into their Holiday buffet :)

[Jennicut]

114. Just as attitudes changed on interracial marriage so to will the attitudes change on gay marriage

It was excepted, then it was not to be against black and whites marrying. With every generation it gets more and more accepted (I hope).

[No Elephants]

120. Changing the law and enforcing it changed attitudes, not the other way around.

Right up until Kennedy and Johnson, African Americans in the South were getting beaten or worse if they tried to register to vote. Civil disobedience, advocacy and, yes, riots, got the Civil Rights Act of 1964. African Americans in the South got further within the decade after that passed than they had since Emancipation.

With every generation? How many more generations are you willing to wait for YOUR civil rights? How many generations of GLBT have to die without their rights before the law gets in line with the morally and ethically right thing to do by our fellow human beings?

[stillcool]

151. I had no idea....

that from 1868, when blacks were given citizenship, and the right to vote, until 1964 there was no struggle, no attempt was made to attain equality. No support was garnered all those years, to advance the cause for equality. Because the 60's brought with it the civil rights act, it was only that time, those beatings, those people, those actions, and had nothing to do with all those years that came before.

[mondo joe]

122. Attitudes on interracial marriage changed AFFTER the law changed.

The law didn't change because bigots were won over.

Same is true of most civil rights advances.

[Jennicut]

127. Yes, and I hope the laws change.

Its legal here in CT. Maybe more states will have the guts to change as CT did but we are really very liberal here.

[mondo joe]

128. Yup!

well said. :thumbsup:

[Jennicut]

130. I think its easier to get gay marriage passed in New England

because we have smaller states, less people to win over.
In CT:
"Fifty-two percent said they support the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling, while 39 percent oppose it. Nine percent are undecided.

But voters strongly oppose amending Connecticut's constitution to ban same-sex marriage, 61 percent to 33 percent. That had been one of the last hopes for opponents of gay marriage."http://www.thehour.com/story/461623

Not changing the state Constitution is a key, I am disgusted if anyone would touch our constitution here for any reason unless its dire and yet in CA there are dumb props passed every year.

[AntiFascist]

145. You have to convince the bigots in power first....

and sad to say Obama is bigoted on the issue of marriage equality, based on the statements he has made, in order to gain political favors no less.

[ThomCat]

172. Laws made it legal before it was accepted, and then people HAD

to learn to accept it. It doesn't work in the reverse order. The majority will never ever quite get around to giving equality to a minority unless forced to.

We can't wait for attitudes to change. We have to make the changes we need. We have to make civil rights happen. And then attitudes will gradually catch up afterwards.

If we waited for people to accept that racism was wrong before giving non-white people rights, only white people would have legal rights today, because we STILL haven't reached the point where racism is gone. It's diminished, but it's still epidemic.

[No Elephants]

116. Think whatever you want. No one can stop you. But , the law of the land is that

no one can stop them from marrying. Loving v. Virginia. Therefore it does not make any difference what you think about it, or what the KKK thinks about it, or even what the POTUS thinks about it.

Get it?

Just in case you didn't get ny drift, go to work on Obama's Supreme Court appointments. Donate and volunteer with the Human Rights Campaign or another reputable gay advocay group, or even a group that fights for everyone's civil rights. Insist that your money and effert is used toward the specific issue of getting people who are pro-gay marriage appointed to the SCOTUS.


In the end, that will be all that really matters as far as gay marriage and equal rights for gays in general.

[pipi_k]

125. You know what's even worse than interracial marriage?

Interstate marriage.


What do the participants end up calling themselves?


Massatuckians?

Texahoans?

New Yorkiaginians?

[Zynx]

126. And since when did we allow women to own property?

Just for good measure:

/sarcasm

By the way, some people in this thread I don't think would know sarcasm if it came up and hit them right in the face.

[pipi_k]

131. Stomp stomp stomp stomp

WHAM!!!!


oooowwwwww!!!! why did you hit me? :cry:



My name is :sarcasm:
I'm a lean, mean, fighting machine



Huh? :silly:

[Zynx]

133. I remember when I was talking to a right winger who wanted to stop "dissent" about the war.

I said, "Wouldn't it be so much more covenient if we had, I don't know, work camps out in the west or maybe Alaska where we could re-educate these people?"

They didn't get it.

[snooper2]

134. Blacks and Whites can get married...

don't you dare let a Jewish man marry a Redneck woman though :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[leftofthedial]

135. I don't think Jews should be allowed to marry Christians.

I mean Christians are normal.

Maybe I'll start a church.

[treestar]

140. If it were 1960, that would be a mainstream argument

Society has gotten way past that.

But it is not over the gay/straight thing. But at least there is a relatively recent example on how to help society get past it.

This is now - it is not, say 2211 when the problem may be solved. Screaming at us for living in 2008 and screaming about Obama living in 2008 does not make 2028 or some such year when gay marriage is the norm get here sooner.

It would be like yelling and yelling that how dare society now let women vote, in 1890 or so. It's an issue, yes, but it's not 1920 yet.

Reality, people. How did women get the vote? By screaming at their allies amongst the men of 1900? No. Women got the vote from legislatures dominated by men, because they knew how to approach the issue. Which to the people at the time was just as radical as the idea of gay marriage is now.

There were people in power who actively fought against the vote for women. They were still considered members of society and the women of that era dealt with that.

[AntiFascist]

146. We have to wait until 2028?!

I have news for you, some us got gay married in California in 2008. Now, we have temporarilly moved backwards thanks to people like Warren. The California legislature has been an incredible ally and CA Supreme Court has been incredibly just. We need to keep screaming at the Religious Right.

[LaydeeBug]

141. and it's NOT because you're a bigot, it's just your "religious beliefs". nt

[KansasVoter]

143. Finally, someone who knows me!! :-)

[S n o w b a l l]

148. Well, you fucking racist bigot!!!

How dare you tell me that my marriage wasn't legal or was a disease! I thought this was a progressive board!! I thought this was against DU's rules! This board is just full of ignorant racists! Fuck you, you bigot! :sarcasm:

Yes, I got your point and yes, my response was sarcasm. But, I was married to a black man. And the responses in this thread are a prime example of how people can be misinterpreted on a message board. I don't believe for an instant that you're racist. See how silly flying off the handle and assuming something about someone can be?

BTW, I'm also bi and have been called out for someone's misinterpretation of something I said about gays. That one was beyond ridiculous. But, it's what happens here. People just assume they know you from a few words on the internet and they're too quick to jump all over your shit.

[Solon]

152. The problem is that sentiments similar to the one in the OP, but applying to Same Sex Marriage...

are said here WITHOUT sarcasm, the posters really mean it. A lot of them start along lines similar to this. "I support equal rights for gays but as a Christian...." And then it just goes down hill from there.

[AntiFascist]

156. That's because people are clueless about their own religious-based bigotry...

and the worst offender of them all is the PE, mainly because he IS the PE.

[Butch350]

149. Out of curiosity...why not?

[Karenina]

153. I'd like to thank TPTB at DU

for, once again, allowing all the anger, righteous or otherwise, to be dumped on the heads of the 2% black population on this board. Vielen Dank.
Happy Holidays to ALL.

[uppityperson]

157. I don't think women should be able to vote either.

Why bother their fluffy little heads with things they cannot understand anyway.



This thread is toooo funny. I am rolling over people taking this seriously, was :sarcasm: really needed?

Oh, in case anyone thinks I am serious about women not voting etc, :sarcasm:

[sampsonblk]

158. Not again...

Gay is not a race of people. Stick with decent logic, and maybe more people will come to agree.

[mondo joe]

160. Interracial couples aren't a race of people.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AntiFascist]

169. You would think we were...

some homophobes accuse us of fascism, as if the gay race is going to take over the country and oppress everyone else. :shrug:

[Veruca Salt]

179. Wait! Wait! I thought we WERE going to take over and oppress everyone!

I had the re-fashioncation camps all set up and ready to go! :cry:

[jakem]

159. I don't think gay people should marry straight people.

There. I said it.

[NorthernSpy]

162. False analogy.

So-called anti-miscegenation laws were actually of fairly recent coinage: the very notion that the state could intervene and impose a racial or ethnic test on a marrying couple was conspicuously outside the norms of Western society as a whole. And note: even the opponents of interracial marriage were aware that such unions were indeed marriages in the traditional sense of the word.

In contrast, same-sex relationships seem to have always fallen outside the definition of marriage. And that has been the case even in societies that were whole-heartedly accepting of same-sex love. Granting official recognition to same-sex unions as marriages fundamentally transforms the institution of marriage -- something that voiding an anti-"miscegenation" statute from 1910 didn't do.


So, apples and oranges.

[mondo joe]

165. Rationalization.

And same sex marriage does not transform the institution of marriage.

Nothing but the arbitrary genders traditionally associated changes - not one law, not one condition, not one requirement or exception other than the arbitrary gender requirement.

Same as interracial marriage, which rested on an equally arbitrary restriction.

Wait long enough in any thread and people opposed to equal rights for GLBT people can no longer resist offering their 2 cents.

[NorthernSpy]

166. Thanks for making my point.

"Nothing but the arbitrary genders traditionally associated changes - not one law, not one condition, not one requirement or exception other than the arbitrary gender requirement."

Exactly. Just "that one thing" has been definitive of marriage throughout history. And so to change that is to transform the institution fundamentally.

"Wait long enough in any thread and people opposed to equal rights for GLBT people can no longer resist offering their 2 cents."

Sounds like you're accusing me of something. And it's interesting that you seem to feel that a fundamental transformation of marriage would be a bad thing.

[mondo joe]

167. Loving v Virginia was based on the merits of the case, not world history.

Try reading the decision some time and the legal justification.

Same sex marriage doesn't change the institution, but expands it to ignore a purely arbitrary distinction.

[mondo joe]

168. self delete

dupe

[AntiFascist]

170. Certain high courts disagree...

marrying the sex you are attracted to is a Fundamental Right of all people. For a long time African-Americans were assumed to be inferior. This presumed inferiority was even written into the original Constitution. Long held attitudes can change.

[Karenina]

175. You might find this piece interesting.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/304/304_col_prop_8_unjust.html

[AntiFascist]

176. Thanks for the link, very informative!

One problem with Prop 8, pointed out by Jerry Brown and others, is that it does not demonstrate a compelling need for the state to have the constitution so amended. They may have to come up with some equally ridiculous reasoning as was used to validate the miscegenation laws. Something like: "exposing children to the notion that gay marriage is acceptable will corrupt their moral values and turn them against God".

[AspenRose]

181. That was a good article

"The usual suspects," indeed.

[TexasObserver]

174. False argument. Your position fits the 19th century, well, however.

As for your "anti miscegenation laws are fairly new," that's simply inaccurate. All over the world, the tribal prohibitions upon marrying outside the tribe have been common for thousands of years. Consult the stories in the Old Testament, if you want something Biblical as a reference.

There are always people who try to rationalize discrimination based upon orientation. You've chosen your lot, and I've chosen mine. I like it better over here with the liberals.

[Oak2004]

173. With apologies to Phil Ochs...

I cried when they shot Harvey Milk
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they killed Matthew Shepard
As though I'd lost a child of mine
But Prop 8 was what they had coming
Gay marriage is too much for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to antiwar rallies
And I put down the old GOP
I love Cindy and Medea and Ann
I hope every resister is freed
But don't talk about ending all wars
I've got too much stock in GE
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Obama was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad Reverend Warren was invited
to bring us together once more
I love gays and lesbians and women
as long as they give me their support
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of the Republican Party
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
Why do they think all the same?
But if you dare question Democratic policy
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read Daily Kos and Atrios
I cheer when the right wing is nailed
You know, I've memorized Hamsher and Greenwald
United the Netroots can't fail
But when it comes to the homeless in my town
I hope the damned losers are jailed
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the Democratic party
Women's rights are what we affirm
We elected Speaker Pelosi
as proof of our deep concern
But when it comes to control of their bodies
It's politically unwise to stand firm
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
Movement actions I did applaud
Even went to the SDS meetings
Cheered liberation movements abroad
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm alerting the mods
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

[Lydia Leftcoast]

180. Excellent parody!

No need to apologize to Phil Ochs. I'm sure he'd fully approve if he were alive today.

[mkultra]

178. Ahh, if only jim crow laws where as limited as this

I can see your point, the two are SO equal in depth.

[psychmommy]

182. i don't care what you think.

you could care less about black people but you expect us to stand with you. you expect us to say what you go through is so much worse. instead of working to find common ground you push black folks away. the civil rights movement was built on alliances. instead of building alliances and educating folks that your rights don't take away from theirs. that their children won't be affected and their religious beliefs will remain unscathed. instead of building bridges, you inherently are trying to burn them with folks who are not against you. folks that are here on this board because we believe in democratic principles and supporting each others struggles. i won't let divisive characters like yourself stop me.