Anti-gay libertarians...

[DEAD7]

I think its the term anti-gay that is confusing. libertarians are not anti gay, but anti government involvement.

If gays were campaigning to remove the state from unions, they would get a lot more support i'm sure.(from libertarians)

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

I am a libertarian, i'm assuming you know that of me from my posts
if not, yes I am.

My opinion on gay rights or gay marriage is.... nothing!
I chose neutrality!

That's not being undecided, that's me not caring.
Whether you sleep with a man or a woman it equally makes no diff to me.

With that said I am against gay marriage when it comes to FORCING a church to marry a gay couple when it goes against their beliefs.

That doesn't mean i'm against gay marriage, it just means I don't believe freedom comes from taking freedom away from another group.

Gays should be able to marry but in their own way.
However if a church is wanting to marry them i'm also all good with that.

Thx

 

[Street Knowledge]

I think it's a sociological problem. Most so-called Libertarians are just traditional Conservatives with a slight twist (trad. Conservatives were also anti-interventionist, for example, but also very Christian,) and not actually Libertarians. They just adopt that name so as not to be associated with the modern GOP.

This. Most libertarians are just republicans at heart

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

lol, all this 'striking down' and no legal marriage for gays recognized by the federal government.

This sentence is incoherent.

The Due process is exactly as you state - so it's like I said... gives the people the right to live their lives the way they please as long as they aren't taking away someones rights.

You don't seem to understand what the Due Process Clause is and what the legal argument is as it pertains to gay marriage. The Due Process Clause states that no state can deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

These liberties have been itemized and gone through with a fine-toothed comb by the SCOTUS for the past century. Historical legal precedent has usually always favored the side that says the state has no right to intercede and ban personal liberties.

In these case which struck down Texas' Homosexual conduct law, for example...

Lawrence and Garner v. Texas | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

The SCOTUS ruled that there was no "legitimate state interest" in banning homosexual acts. That's usually been the standard in these cases that deal with personal family, marriage, and child-rearing decisions. And people on your side of this issue don't have anything to stand on other than "eww, fakkits are nasty," and that is not a legitimate state interest. That ruling also defined marriage as a right.

Or this case about abortion...

Planned Parenthood v. Casey | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

It established "constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education."

The decision...

"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."

Again, personal liberty and autonomy is invoked in concordance with the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment.

People are allowed to marry in anyway they like. Gay people can get married in every state.

Gay people are only allowed to get married in 11 states, what are you talking about?

The Due process clause does not guarantee that those marriages will be recognized by the federal government or any state gov... so the things you're speaking of are irrelevant.

You obviously are not even familiar with what the Due Process Clause says and that's why I'm having to inform you. As already explained twice, the Due Process Clause establishes a realm of personal liberty, that cannot be infringed upon by the state, and there is strong legal precedent that established marriage as a right. The Due Process Clause has already been used to strike down Prop 8.

The equal protection cause affords people equal Protection... not equal marriage benefits. Gays have equal protection and additional protection under other discrimination laws.

You obviously don't know anything about the Equal Protection Clause and its legal precedent like you don't know anything about the Due Process Clause and its legal precedent.

You already erroneously stated that the EPC doesn't apply to marriage at all in your previous post. You're obviously just making up shyt as you go along. Why even debate something if you haven't even attempted to familiarized yourself with what you're arguing against?

The Equal Protection Clause says that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It has already been applied to marriage in many cases.

Loving v. Virginia is about people not discriminating the basic right of marriage based on color. In 1967 it was unanimously understood that the marriage they referred to was between a man and woman, and the meaning was clearly understood by every single person involved with the case. You can't discriminate based on sex, ethnicity, or color. That case not only didn't strike down gay marriage bans, it didn't address it.

Whether marriage is "unanimously understood was between a man and a woman" is meaningless because marriage was also unanimously understand to be between a white man and a white woman, or a black man and a black woman throughout most of our nation's history.

Loving v. Virginia established marriage as a RIGHT that cannot be infringed upon by the state. Race could not be used as a criteria to ban marriage. There is nothing in the Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and marriage has always been a fluid, dynamic concept over time.

You don't have any legal argument to support your position. You're just drawing an arbitrary line to what you think the courts should do, based on nothing but your own bias.

California Prop 8 .. addresses STATE constitutions. .. and so does anything else you can mention - Which is my point. Family laws have traditionally been left to state regulation.

States don't get to vote on rights. We kinda already had that battle. Or do you support Jim Crow laws?

If a State recognizes your marriage then you qualify for federal recognition and benefits.

This is incorrect. DOMA banned same-sex couples from getting federal benefits. Karen Golinski successfully sued and challenged the constitutionality of DOMA on the basis on the Equal Protection Clause, which you claim has nothing to do with same sex marriage, and has won several appeals. It's waiting to be heard by the SCOTUS.

Also, other states don't have to give benefits and acknowledge the marriages of people who are married in a state where it's legal.

If we want a big brother approach, I guess we can ask the fed government to dictate family issues to the States, and take away state rights - but then that would clearly set the precedence that anything we consider a state issue can easily be decided on by the fed gov -AKA complete fukkkery.

lol@this strawman shyt. Allowing people to marry whom they love nationwide is a big brother approach now?

It's funny how homophobes turn into :sadpaul: when it's time to defend their logically indefensible position.

Which is why Obama and damn near every other Democrat agrees with nearly 100% of GOP party members in that States alone should solve these issues.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Obama supports full legal same-sex marriage and the full repeal of DOMA, and so do most Democrats.

Gay rights supports are left speaking about "Earl Warren's opinion..." when in reality Warren said the word "race" and "racial" about 5 trillion times when speaking on equal protection....

Whether he said race or not, the only legal thing that matters is that the decision established marriage as a right to not be infringed upon by the state. Do you understand how law and legal precedent work?

I doubt he would believe it, if someone told him that his opinions would be used in a fakkit marriage debate in the future. It's pretty damn clear that Warren was addressing race only... and it's pretty clear that gay rights supporters have no constitutional argument.

First of all, you sound like a complete bufoonish imbecile by constantly using the word "fakkit" in what is supposedly an objective legal debate, but I digress. I'm trying to help you out.

Your point is completely irrelevant because the framers of the Constitution didn't mean for black people to have full equality, but there was no rational legal means to enforce racial discrimination forever due to the rights granted in the Constitution.

Just like there is not rational legal means to keep banning gay marriage. The Constitution establishes rights. It wasn't meant to means-test every conceivable legal question that could arise when it was written. But when these legal question arise, we use it as a template.

Of course, another thing self-inflicting wound of gay rights movements is attempting to attach itself to the balls of black rights movements.

It's not about the black rights movement. It's about law, legal precedent, and the Constitution. And your side will lose on that, just like they lost on civil rights. And yes, I am saying your side. You represent the same closed-minded ignorance that was pro-Jim Crow.

Look at all the straws you yourself are forced to pull upon.... Trust me, if there was a case.. then it would have been made and decided on in the favor of homomarriage by now.

lol...the straws I'm forced to pull? What, the 14th amendment and several court cases establishing the purview of the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause?

And are you not aware that Prop 8 and DOMA have been ruled unconstitutional already and are awaiting the SCOTUS?

Look at the scoreboard. Your side is losing...and will lose. It's only a matter of when, not if.

If marriage really is just a civil issue.. then fight to increase the scope of civil unions. I know asking for us to be real for a sec is pointless.... but to be real gay people want validation for a lifestyle. And fridge group or any group that has a lifestyle that abnormal naturally seeks that. So they challenge the meaning of marriage, as understood for 20K years. If it was about rights and only rights then civil union rallies would be popping up all over the place to increase the fed benefits of those.

Also, let's note that religious organizations hold marriage ceremonies, but religion didn't create marriage and religion isn't what's keeping it between a man and a women. The religious groups that are at blame for being anti homomarriage haven't even been around for a fraction of the time that the man-woman marriage practice has been around. It's about society and human's have deemed marriage is better this way. To be fair about 'you can't help who you love' we have civil unions. Marriage is one of the few things that most cultures on Earth have agreed on for all of history. today due to "evolving morals" there still is only like 20 nations out of 190+ that recognize the change in definition... and that is all recent

None of that is relevant. It's just your personal emotions. There's no legal or ethical argument to ban same-sex marriage that holds any water.

Even a strict constitutional conservative like Meta Reign who admittedly "hates fakkits" like you (but unlike you, he's real enough to just admit) is intellectually honest enough to know that the Constitution isn't on your side on this one.

 

[Blackking]

This sentence is incoherent.



You don't seem to understand what the Due Process Clause is and what the legal argument is as it pertains to gay marriage. The Due Process Clause states that no state can deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

These liberties have been itemized and gone through with a fine-toothed comb by the SCOTUS for the past century. Historical legal precedent has usually always favored the side that says the state has no right to intercede and ban personal liberties.

In these case which struck down Texas' Homosexual conduct law, for example...

Lawrence and Garner v. Texas | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

The SCOTUS ruled that there was no "legitimate state interest" in banning homosexual acts. That's usually been the standard in these cases that deal with personal family, marriage, and child-rearing decisions. And people on your side of this issue don't have anything to stand on other than "eww, fakkits are nasty," and that is not a legitimate state interest. That ruling also defined marriage as a right.

Or this case about abortion...

Planned Parenthood v. Casey | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

It established "constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education."

The decision...

"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."

Again, personal liberty and autonomy is invoked in concordance with the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment.



Gay people are only allowed to get married in 11 states, what are you talking about?



You obviously are not even familiar with what the Due Process Clause says and that's why I'm having to inform you. As already explained twice, the Due Process Clause establishes a realm of personal liberty, that cannot be infringed upon by the state, and there is strong legal precedent that established marriage as a right. The Due Process Clause has already been used to strike down Prop 8.



You obviously don't know anything about the Equal Protection Clause and its legal precedent like you don't know anything about the Due Process Clause and its legal precedent.

Why even debate something if you haven't even attempted to familiarized yourself with what you're arguing against?

The Equal Protection Clause says that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It has already been applied to marriage in many cases.



Whether marriage is "unanimously understood was between a man and a woman" is meaningless because marriage was also unanimously understand to be between a white man and a white woman, or a black man and a black woman throughout most of our nation's history.

Loving v. Virginia established marriage as a RIGHT that cannot be infringed upon by the state. Race could not be used as a criteria to ban marriage. There is nothing in the Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and marriage has always been a fluid, dynamic concept over time.

You don't have any legal argument to support your position. You're just drawing an arbitrary line to what you think the courts should do, based on nothing but your own bias.



States don't get to vote on rights. Or do you support Jim Crow laws?



This is incorrect. DOMA banned same-sex couples from getting federal benefits. Karen Golinski successfully sued and challenged the constitutionality of DOMA on the basis on the Equal Protection Clause, which you claim has nothing to do with same sex marriage, and has won several appeals. It's waiting to be heard by the SCOTUS.

Also, other states don't have to give benefits and acknowledge the marriages of people who are married in a state where it's legal.



lol@strawman shyt. Allowing people to marry whom they love nationwide is a big brother approach now?

It's funny how homophobes turn into :sadpaul: when it's time to defend their logically indefensible position.



Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Obama supports full legal same-sex marriage and the full repeal of DOMA, and so do most Democrats.



Whether he said race or not, the only legal thing that matters is that the decision established marriage as a right to not be infringed upon by the state. Do you understand how law and legal precedent work?


First of all, you sound like a complete bufoonish imbecile by constantly using the word "fakkit" in what is supposedly an objective legal debate, but I digress. I'm trying to help you out.

Your point is completely irrelevant because the framers of the Constitution didn't mean for black people to have full equality, but there was no rational legal means to enforce racial discrimination forever due to the rights granted in the Constitution.

Just like there is not rational legal means to keep banning gay marriage. The Constitution establishes rights. It wasn't meant to means-test every conceivable legal question. But when these legal question arise, we use it as a template.



It's not about the black rights movement. It's about law, legal precedent, and the Constitution. And your side will lose on that, just like they lost on civil rights. And yes, I am saying your side. You represent the same closed-minded ignorance that was pro-Jim Crow.



lol...the straws I'm forced to pull? What, the 14th amendment and several court cases establishing the purview of the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause?

And are you not aware that Prop 8 and DOMA have been ruled unconstitutional already and are awaiting the SCOTUS?

Look at the scoreboard. Your side is losing...and will lose. It's only a matter of when, not if.


None of that is relevant. It's just your personal emotions. There's no legal or ethical argument to ban same-sex marriage that holds any water.

Even a guy like Meta Reign who admittedly "hates fakkits" like you (but unlike you, he's real enough to just admit) is intellectually honest enough to know that the Constitution isn't on your side on this one.

lol, can't take you seriously. This debate has been argued for decades. You actually believe that if someone doesn't agree with you they just don't understand the law and how it works. Well apparently many judges and lawyers are less knowledgeable about law- especially constitutional law than you are.

You can't get emotional.... your arguments becomes see through. So because you're points were invalidated - I automatically hate gays?? Gay hate is not the issue.. @now everyone who feels that the legal case they are making is flawed is a bigot? You're ignorant as sh1t.

Also, if a black person isn't a gay marriage supporter then that automatically makes them on the same level and mentality of supporters of Jim Crow??? One day you will see how your logic is flawed.

But a few things to address all the emotional crap you wrote.
1) You must have miss the speeches when Obama clearly stated, Gay's should be able to get married... but don't have the right to--- He clearly says that it's a state issue. That is the point. Democrat and even someone like me who isn't a Democrat.. can give two sh1t about gay marriage... but when it comes to the law ... LAW 101 tells you that family issues are typically determined by the state.

2)You are emotional. The "fakkits are nasty", and the Christian arguments aren't what's holding the debate back. Grow up Vicvondoom. That isn't the point and those are fridge ideas. Don't be upset with me because you attempted to falsely speak on the Loving v. Virginia case and I call you out. LOL at you misquoting and taking everything the Supreme court said WAYYYYY out of context.

3)

"Loving v. Virginia established marriage as a RIGHT that cannot be infringed upon by the state. Race could not be used as a criteria to ban marriage. There is nothing in the Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and marriage has always been a fluid, dynamic concept over time."

Read a book, because everything you said is wrong. Baker v. Nelson. Baker v. Nelson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Plus, if we can't be real and state that anti-miscegenation was the only issue addressed with Viginia, then I can't help you. Gays can make a case of their own,, just as that black woman white man did. If they feel they have a case then make the case --- NOT on the backs of racial civil rights legislation-- because everyone can see plainly that those judges were ONLY addressing race... and not ...... well let me just quote this...................

" In Hernandez v. Robles (2006), the majority opinion of the New York Court of Appeals, that state's highest court, declined to rely on the Loving case when deciding whether a right to same-sex marriage existed, holding that "the historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case."

4) So why be stupid and pull at all these irrelevant straws. There is a better way. For example, my cuz is gay, has a boyfriend. They are in love... so should they be about the get tax breaks and visit each other in the hospital. So they need marriage to do this? No. Any rights they don't have- they Could be fighting to increase the scope of civil unions - Plus they can have a marriage not recognized by the states. In the end they still have all the fed benefits afforded to couples.

Gay people are only allowed to get married in 11 states, what are you talking about?

Gay people can have a ceremony, put on rings and live life together in any state. The state doesn't have to recognize them or allow them fed benefits... but they can be married. That is a basic human right that no one can take away.

The Equal Protection Clause says that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

For all of history Marriage was defined one way. Now you say it's fluid just because of recent events and causes. OK, fine. Everyone gets confused about history, but this debate isn't about that sh1t. Have you ever heard of something called federalism? Lets pretend that gays didn't exist. We would not even have this debate. IT would be open and shut. Any lawyer you speak with will tell you that the fed gov had not business changing the family and marriage laws that states have set. California.. prop 8 appeals are making the case that a State shouldn't be allowed to violate a constitutional right. 1. the only thing they point to doesn't address homosexuality. 2. individual liberty and limitations in federal power are really what the debate is about (you should actually listen to the debate). 3. BOND vs. the US proves that the court isn't budging on any issues involving federalism because “federalism secures the freedom of the individual.” 4. Whether it's gun laws, excess taxes, or unjust traffic laws... states have the right. The fed isn't going to tell MI to enforce the same child support laws of TX.. That's not the feds role

Obviously a gay marriage supporter could care less about tradition... but traditionally, family laws have been left up to the states.. only in a few cases have they've been addressed outside the state. 5 ) And most importantly "The Equal Protection and Due Process clauses were enacted to ensure the fundamental liberties of newly freed slaves and prevent the imposition of arbitrary and invidious classifications based upon race. The clauses were not then, and have never been, understood to invalidate any and all distinctions or restrictions imposed by state governments, including those based upon sex."


LOL at you using the Planned parent hood case (racist) to make a case about why gays should piggy back off racial legislation.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

lol, can't take you seriously. This debate has been argued for decades. You actually believe that if someone doesn't agree with you they just don't understand the law and how it works. Well apparently many judges and lawyers are less knowledgeable about law- especially constitutional law than you are.

You can't get emotional.... your arguments becomes see through. So because you're points were invalidated - I automatically hate gays?? Gay hate is not the issue.. @now everyone who feels that the legal case they are making is flawed is a bigot? You're ignorant as sh1t.

Also, if a black person isn't a gay marriage supporter then that automatically makes them on the same level and mentality of supporters of Jim Crow??? One day you will see how your logic is flawed.

But a few things to address all the emotional crap you wrote.
1) You must have miss the speeches when Obama clearly stated, Gay's should be able to get married... but don't have the right to--- He clearly says that it's a state issue. That is the point. Democrat and even someone like me who isn't a Democrat.. can give two sh1t about gay marriage... but when it comes to the law ... LAW 101 tells you that family issues are typically determined by the state.

2)You are emotional. The "fakkits are nasty", and the Christian arguments aren't what's holding the debate back. Grow up Vicvondoom. That isn't the point and those are fridge ideas. Don't be upset with me because you attempted to falsely speak on the Loving v. Virginia case and I call you out. LOL at you misquoting and taking everything the Supreme court said WAYYYYY out of context.

3) Read a book, because everything you said is wrong. Baker v. Nelson. Baker v. Nelson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Plus, if we can't be real and state that anti-miscegenation was the only issue addressed with Viginia, then I can't help you. Gays can make a case of their own,, just as that black woman white man did. If they feel they have a case then make the case --- NOT on the backs of racial civil rights legislation-- because everyone can see plainly that those judges were ONLY addressing race... and not ...... well let me just quote this...................

" In Hernandez v. Robles (2006), the majority opinion of the New York Court of Appeals, that state's highest court, declined to rely on the Loving case when deciding whether a right to same-sex marriage existed, holding that "the historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case."

4) So why be stupid and pull at all these irrelevant straws. There is a better way. For example, my cuz is gay, has a boyfriend. They are in love... so should they be about the get tax breaks and visit each other in the hospital. So they need marriage to do this? No. Any rights they don't have- they Could be fighting to increase the scope of civil unions - Plus they can have a marriage not recognized by the states. In the end they still have all the fed benefits afforded to couples.

Gay people can have a ceremony, put on rings and live life together in any state. The state doesn't have to recognize them or allow them fed benefits... but they can be married. That is a basic human right that no one can take away.


For all of history Marriage was defined one way. Now you say it's fluid just because of recent events and causes. OK, fine. Everyone gets confused about history, but this debate isn't about that sh1t. Have you ever heard of something called federalism? Lets pretend that gays didn't exist. We would not even have this debate. IT would be open and shut. Any lawyer you speak with will tell you that the fed gov had not business changing the family and marriage laws that states have set. California.. prop 8 appeals are making the case that a State shouldn't be allowed to violate a constitutional right. 1. the only thing they point to doesn't address homosexuality. 2. individual liberty and limitations in federal power are really what the debate is about (you should actually listen to the debate). 3. BOND vs. the US proves that the court isn't budging on any issues involving federalism because “federalism secures the freedom of the individual.” 4. Whether it's gun laws, excess taxes, or unjust traffic laws... states have the right. The fed isn't going to tell MI to enforce the same child support laws of TX.. That's not the feds role

Obviously a gay marriage supporter could care less about tradition... but traditionally, family laws have been left up to the states.. only in a few cases have they've been addressed outside the state. 5 ) And most importantly "The Equal Protection and Due Process clauses were enacted to ensure the fundamental liberties of newly freed slaves and prevent the imposition of arbitrary and invidious classifications based upon race. The clauses were not then, and have never been, understood to invalidate any and all distinctions or restrictions imposed by state governments, including those based upon sex."


LOL at you using the Planned parent hood case (racist) to make a case about why gays should piggy back off racial legislation.

Oh word?

 

[Blackking]

Oh word?

lol, y r u just now quoting this? I still stand by what I said, and I'm correct. Just like we (our Justice system and legal systems) can manipulate meanings definitions and rules ( like they are currently doing with Voting rights and privacy). They will manipulate for this issue as well. Loving v. Virginia and anything else you can look at makes what I stated very clear.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

lol, y r u just now quoting this? I still stand by what I said, and I'm correct. Just like we (our Justice system and legal systems) can manipulate meanings definitions and rules ( like they are currently doing with Voting rights and privacy). They will manipulate for this issue as well. Loving v. Virginia and anything else you can look at makes what I stated very clear.

Okay buddy...you're right.

 

[Mr. Somebody]

There were homosexuals that owned slaves in the 1800's. Many have gone on to give wealth to their families and establish lineage. I dont see how their rights trump groups that actually need rights, *other races/women*

 

[The Real]

There were homosexuals that owned slaves in the 1800's. Many have gone on to give wealth to their families and establish lineage. I dont see how their rights trump groups that actually need rights, *other races/women*

There were also Black and Native American people who owned slaves in the 1800s.

I guess we shouldn't be fighting for those rights, either.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

There were also Black and Native American people who owned slaves in the 1800s.

I guess we shouldn't be fighting for those rights, either.

Like Cape Verdeans.

 

[Mr. Somebody]

There were also Black and Native American people who owned slaves in the 1800s.

I guess we shouldn't be fighting for those rights, either.

What rights are you speaking of. Native Americans last i checked generate billions with casinos and dont pay taxes in their reserves.

I say all this to say, gays have been a direct benefactor of the oppression and murder of other groups. They dont need any other rights. Its obvious they hate friends.

 

[The Real]

What rights are you speaking of. Native Americans last i checked generate billions with casinos and dont pay taxes in their reserves.

So Native Americans aren't oppressed, friend? I see.

And what about Black people, friend?

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

What rights are you speaking of. Native Americans last i checked generate billions with casinos and dont pay taxes in their reserves.

Yeah they also lost 99.999999% of their ancestral land, their culture and languages are nearly dead, their alcoholism rates are absurdly high, and they're one of the most destitute and poorly educated groups in the country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_poverty


But they have casinos!

 

[Mr. Somebody]

So Native Americans aren't oppressed, friend? I see.

And what about Black people, friend?

Id say the indigenous natives and individuals of African descent that are descendants of slaves have less rights historically than the gay community because the gay community has been a benefactor of their oppression and are now making a mockery of their struggles by piggy backing them and tacking on some emotional issue they are having and calling it a struggle that deserves to be respected on the same level as the rights native americans/individuals of African descent who were decendants of slaves are seeking.

Its so demonic, friend.