Black Preacher destroys the "Gay is the New Black" argument

blackslash

Superstar
Bushed
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
17,946
Reputation
-1,950
Daps
25,304
Ok. The very first argument in the block of quoted text is a straw man.

The preacher mentions conflating race and sexuality, but no one is doing that. Not even the majority of homosexuals themselves believe that they're the same, or that Black people and gay people have suffered the same. The argument is specifically that race and homosexuality are both identity traits that people can't control and that don't inherently hurt anyone, and so shouldn't be grounds for unequal treatment in terms of access to legal institutions like marriage. So he hasn't actually addressed the argument for gay marriage, but put up a straw man.

That's one example.
Nah because that section of the article's point is the types of identification for both, and that "gay" can only be self identified and that there is no visual or tangible indicator of an individual's sexual orientation
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,928
Reputation
-34,262
Daps
616,313
Reppin
The Deep State
See this is why I answered ur questions with questions earlier...ur retort is one that stands ont he ground of ur nihilist worldview
1. this doesn't matter
2. I'm an existential nihilist. learn the difference.

You asked for my beef with it and I told u my beef with it on the acct of my worldview but you take that adopt my answer and interpret it with ur nihilistic worldview and then retort as if the answer was meant to be interpreted as such....
Your view is contradictory.

So as I said ur question for me was alrdy useless to begin with but lets discuss what we were discussing earlier which is the article
Just say you hate gays and get it over with. Stop trying to pretend that any normal straight man listens to 30 minute podcasts from religious preachers and their views on gay people. The shyt must really bother you that gay people are floating around.

P.S Gays can get married and were always able to..what gays are asking for is a redefinition of marriage and calling it a civil rights issue which is false..the article touches on this in more depth
DO YOU NOT REALIZE "Marriage" DIFFERS BETWEEN STATES??????? Its not a FEDERAL right. Its a STATES right.

Now...since most states streamline the laws for the sake of consistency, it DOES NOT change how the government chain of command works.

AND Civil Unions ARE NOT MARRIAGE because THEY DO NOT GRANT THE SAME RIGHTS AND ACCESS TO LAWS BETWEEN STATES.

Some states have some provisions other states don't have.

Theres no need to create redundant laws under different titles.

Civil Unions and "Marriage" aren't the same thing.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,928
Reputation
-34,262
Daps
616,313
Reppin
The Deep State
Nah because that section of the article's point is the types of identification for both, and that "gay" can only be self identified and that there is no visual or tangible indicator of an individual's sexual orientation

and theres no similarity between the womens suffrage movement and the civil rights voting act...right?

Its not the population thats the point, its the END GOAL = LEGAL AUTONOMY AND RECOGNITION
 

blackslash

Superstar
Bushed
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
17,946
Reputation
-1,950
Daps
25,304
and theres no similarity between the womens suffrage movement and the civil rights voting act...right?

Its not the population thats the point, its the END GOAL = LEGAL AUTONOMY AND RECOGNITION
ur response has nothing to do with my post
 

Sensitive Blake Griffin

Banned
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
37,125
Reputation
2,603
Daps
67,685
Nah because that section of the article's point is the types of identification for both, and that "gay" can only be self identified and that there is no visual or tangible indicator of an individual's sexual orientation
bullshyt, I can spot a queer a mile away. There are gays that don't appear to be gay on first glance, but interact with them and its pretty obvious. It's not easy to hide your sexuality.
 

blackslash

Superstar
Bushed
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
17,946
Reputation
-1,950
Daps
25,304
1. this doesn't matter
2. I'm an existential nihilist. learn the difference.

Your view is contradictory.


Just say you hate gays and get it over with. Stop trying to pretend that any normal straight man listens to 30 minute podcasts from religious preachers and their views on gay people. The shyt must really bother you that gay people are floating around.


DO YOU NOT REALIZE "Marriage" DIFFERS BETWEEN STATES??????? Its not a FEDERAL right. Its a STATES right.

Now...since most states streamline the laws for the sake of consistency, it DOES NOT change how the government chain of command works.

AND Civil Unions ARE NOT MARRIAGE because THEY DO NOT GRANT THE SAME RIGHTS AND ACCESS TO LAWS BETWEEN STATES.

Some states have some provisions other states don't have.

Theres no need to create redundant laws under different titles.

Civil Unions and "Marriage" aren't the same thing.

An additional problem with the "gay is the new black" argument is the complete disconnect between same-sex "marriage" and anti-miscegenation laws. First, there is a categorical disconnect. Miscegenation literally means "the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types." Ironically, the fact that homosexuals cannot "interbreed" shines a spotlight on the problem inherent in their logic. How can forbidding people who actually have the ability to interbreed be the same thing as acknowledging the fact that two people categorically lack that ability?8

Second, there is a definitional disconnect. The very definition of marriage eliminates the possibility of including same-sex couples. The word marriage has a long and well-recorded history; it means "the union of a man and a woman." Even in cultures that practice polygamy, the definition involves a man and several women. Therefore, while anti-miscegenation laws denied people a legitimate right, the same cannot be said concerning the denial of marriage to same-sex couples; one cannot be denied a right to something that doesn't exist.


Fourth, there is a legal disconnect. One thing that seems to escape most people in this debate is the fact that homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. They simply haven't had the right to redefine marriage. But don't take my word for it; listen to the Iowa Supreme Court in their decision in favor of same-sex "marriage": "It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex."

There it is: not only in black and white, but in a legal decision. Homosexuals haven't been deprived of any right. How, then, do those on the side of same-sex marriage continue to make the claim that this is a civil rights issue? The key is in the next paragraph:

[The] right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute.

I feel the need to remind the reader that this is a legal decision, since phrases like "gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship" tend to sound out of place in such a document. Further, this is asinine logic. For example, following this line of reasoning, one could argue, "I have the right to join the military, but I am a pacifist. Therefore, I don't really have the right (since it would be repulsive to me). Therefore, we need to establish a pacifist branch of the military so that I can fulfill both my desire to join, and my desire not to fight."
 

blackslash

Superstar
Bushed
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
17,946
Reputation
-1,950
Daps
25,304
bullshyt, I can spot a queer a mile away. There are gays that don't appear to be gay on first glance, but interact with them and its pretty obvious. It's not easy to hide your sexuality.
No that's merely how u choose to interpret it...see I can debate with Napoleon because at some level he will adhere to some level of objectivity

U on the other hand is some cac ass cac that dnt know no better fck out my face dumass cac :camby:
 

Sensitive Blake Griffin

Banned
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
37,125
Reputation
2,603
Daps
67,685
No that's merely how u choose to interpret it...see I can debate with Napoleon because at some level he will adhere to some level of objectivity

U on the other hand is some cac ass cac that dnt know no better fck out my face dumass cac :camby:
How is anything I said not objective? Are you telling me you walk around having absolutely NO IDEA who is gay and who isn't?

Hilarious talking about how you can debate with someone because they're objective and then you throw adhominem attacks at the end of your post :laff:
 

The Real

Anti-Ignorance
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
6,353
Reputation
725
Daps
10,724
Reppin
NYC
Nah because that section of the article's point is the types of identification for both, and that "gay" can only be self identified and that there is no visual or tangible indicator of an individual's sexual orientation

Again, that is addressing a straw man. The argument for gay marriage doesn't require homosexuality and race to be exactly the same, and again, the majority in favor of it don't believe they are the same. So bringing that up at all was simply a diversion and a misrepresentation of the opposing view.

Here's a second bad argument, though- the pastor claims that because there is no way to accept homosexuality beyond a person's word testifying to it, it is insufficient grounds for legal recognition- you know what else is only acceptable based on a person's word? Religion. Does that mean religions don't deserve protection, or that religious people shouldn't receive conscience-based exemptions from things? Just as with homosexuality, anyone can say they belong to a particular faith, even if they don't. The two are the same on that particular point.
 

blackslash

Superstar
Bushed
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
17,946
Reputation
-1,950
Daps
25,304
How is anything I said not objective? Are you telling me you walk around having absolutely NO IDEA who is gay and who isn't?

Hilarious talking about how you can debate with someone because they're objective and then you throw adhominem attacks at the end of your post :laff:
Because your example is not based on science but based on how u choose to interpret and asses that individual and we're talking about something insinuating homosexuality being a trait one is tied to genetically, not one u merely assess going to gay bars on friday nights :laff:
 

No_bammer_weed

✌️ Coli. Wish y’all the best of luck. One
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
10,186
Reputation
7,775
Daps
57,407
Nah because that section of the article's point is the types of identification for both, and that "gay" can only be self identified and that there is no visual or tangible indicator of an individual's sexual orientation

Translation: As long as gays dont openly self-affirm, or complain about discrimination, then there wont be any problems. This is of course eerily reminiscent with the segregationalist argument that as long as blacks arent "troublemakers", and dont question the social structure or make waves about their "race" and mistreatment then everything will be just fine. Why dont you guys just come out and say what you want to say, rather then tying yourselves into knots with contradictory logic that ends up supporting the ideas that you claim hostility towards gays does not.
 

Sensitive Blake Griffin

Banned
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
37,125
Reputation
2,603
Daps
67,685
Because your example is not based on science but based on how u choose to interpret and asses that individual and we're talking about something insinuating homosexuality being a trait one is tied to genetically, not one u merely assess going to gay bars on friday nights :laff:
This whole fukking thread is not based on science, and I've never seen you say ONE THING that had any scientific nature to it at all.

For the most part it's pretty easy to tell when someone is a homosexual, unless they're deeply in the closet and completely masking their sexuality from everyone 24/7. Homosexuality most likely has a genetic component to it. I have a friend who is a lesbian and her cousin is a lesbian too and so is one of their aunts.
 

blackslash

Superstar
Bushed
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
17,946
Reputation
-1,950
Daps
25,304
Translation: As long as gays dont openly self-affirm, or complain about discrimination, then there wont be any problems. This is of course eerily reminiscent with the segregationalist argument that as long as blacks arent "troublemakers", and dont question the social structure or make waves about their "race" and mistreatment then everything will be just fine. Why dont you guys just come out and say what you want to say, rather then tying yourselves into knots with contradictory logic that ends up supporting the ideas that you claim hostility towards gays does not.
:what: Difference is the very rreason for the discussion is that being black and being gay is nowhere near on the same thing or even the same or same kind of issue...here u go making assumptions and trying to have us defend whether or not we're homophobes or bigots instead of having the discussion the way its supposed to go down...ur literally using every evasive tactic Voddie said :laff:
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,928
Reputation
-34,262
Daps
616,313
Reppin
The Deep State
An additional problem with the "gay is the new black" argument is the complete disconnect between same-sex "marriage" and anti-miscegenation laws. First, there is a categorical disconnect. Miscegenation literally means "the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types." Ironically, the fact that homosexuals cannot "interbreed" shines a spotlight on the problem inherent in their logic. How can forbidding people who actually have the ability to interbreed be the same thing as acknowledging the fact that two people categorically lack that ability?

WTF?

Dude this makes no fukking sense.

Not all sex is procreative, nor are all sexual acts using a penis and vagina.

Even further CONSENSUAL SEX AMONG ADULTS should not matter.

Unless you're against heterosexual oral sex, or heterosexual anal sex.

Second, there is a definitional disconnect. The very definition of marriage eliminates the possibility of including same-sex couples. The word marriage has a long and well-recorded history; it means "the union of a man and a woman." Even in cultures that practice polygamy, the definition involves a man and several women. Therefore, while anti-miscegenation laws denied people a legitimate right, the same cannot be said concerning the denial of marriage to same-sex couples; one cannot be denied a right to something that doesn't exist.

1. the length of how long a law has been around means NOTHING
2. polygamy is not the issue.

Fourth, there is a legal disconnect. One thing that seems to escape most people in this debate is the fact that homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. They simply haven't had the right to redefine marriage. But don't take my word for it; listen to the Iowa Supreme Court in their decision in favor of same-sex "marriage": "It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex."
Civil unions do not grant the same consistent access to legal protections as marriages do

There it is: not only in black and white, but in a legal decision. Homosexuals haven't been deprived of any right. How, then, do those on the side of same-sex marriage continue to make the claim that this is a civil rights issue? The key is in the next paragraph:
Until 2003, it was illegal to even have gay sex in half the country. Read Lawrence v Texas

[The] right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute.
WTF???????

Dawg, BEING PREVENTED FROM GETTING MARRIED IS A VIOLATION OF YOUR RIGHT

I feel the need to remind the reader that this is a legal decision, since phrases like "gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship" tend to sound out of place in such a document. Further, this is asinine logic. For example, following this line of reasoning, one could argue, "I have the right to join the military, but I am a pacifist. Therefore, I don't really have the right (since it would be repulsive to me). Therefore, we need to establish a pacifist branch of the military so that I can fulfill both my desire to join, and my desire not to fight."
This analogy doesn't fit.
 
Top