Gay Couple Forced to Sit at the Back of the Bus in Albequerque

[thernbroom]

Disgrace what if it was an interracial couple

 

[thekingsmen]

I didn' t equate them. You said that this situation was different just because they didn't have to be on that bus. That means that you're also endorsing the idea that a situation where there are alternate options means the discrimination is less serious. That means you think that Black people getting sent to the back of the bus wouldn't have been a big deal if they had other buses to use. That's your line of thought, not mine.


And yet here you are...


I didn't bring up "economic collapse" because we're not on the brink of one. I didn't bring up world war because there isn't one around the corner. I've posted about the economy and foreign conflict many times, though.


I doubt the media will blow this up. There's much more immediate, severe, widespread discrimination homosexuals have to deal with than this.

1. Read what I said again...and you need to read history about where the buses were in the part of town where people were at. You are putting words in my mouth cause your comprehension of history always has an agenda to it. No one ever said blacks would be less discriminated against on different buses.

2. Im here making sure you know this is a non-story...if no one would have responded I think people would feel bad

3. We aren't on a economic collaspe? or WW3? Your train left the station a long time ago b. History always proves to repeat itself and it proves you are wrong my friend...both are very close.

 

[The Real]

1. Read what I said again...and you need to read history about where the buses were in the part of town where people were at. You are putting words in my mouth cause your comprehension of history always has an agenda to it. No one ever said blacks would be less discriminated against on different buses.

Either having more options, some of which don't discriminate, means that the options that do discriminate aren't as bad, or they don't. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about gay people, Chinese people, or deaf people. Either you can drop this line of argument and admit it makes no sense, or you can admit that you think Black people having other options would mean that discrimination wasn't as bad.

2. Im here making sure you know this is a non-story...if no one would have responded I think people would feel bad

I wouldn't have felt bad. I think you responded because you're obsessed with proving that gay people's claims of discrimination are overblown.

3. We aren't on a economic collaspe? or WW3? Your train left the station a long time ago b. History always proves to repeat itself and it proves you are wrong my friend...both are very close.

How exactly is it repeating itself?

 

[thekingsmen]

Either having more options, some of which don't discriminate, means that the options that do discriminate aren't as bad, or they don't. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about gay people, Chinese people, or deaf people. Either you can drop this line of argument and admit it makes no sense, or you can admit that you think Black people having other options would mean that discrimination wasn't as bad.



I wouldn't have felt bad. I think you responded because you're obsessed with proving that gay people's claims of discrimination are overblown.



How exactly is it repeating itself?

1. Creating all the types of various situations that don't equate to the Civil Rights movement to try to prove your point about this poor gay couple is similar is sad but also predictable for someone with a agenda.

2. The discrimination is overblown and your article proved it. You don't want to admit it and want to march

3. That is another thread my friend.

 

[Chris.B]

I understand where you might feel there might be a connection between both behaviors but from a strict behavior standpoint two consenting adults have every right to do what they want with each other and there is a clear distinction when a child is involved because the child in many instances may not even be sexually developed nor have the mental capacity to really make decisions about their sexuality...and thats an age that is up for debate but for the most part most ages of consent in U.S. range from 16-18 where the law feels they are old enough to make a decision on sexual activity.

Unless there is scientific evidence linking homosexuals with rampant child predator behavior and they are both found to be mental illnesses that cannot be controlled you can't really make that connection, but i understand the reservations and naturally i think all fathers would think twice about allowing their children to be taken care of by say a gay male baby sitter let alone any male. I'm sure someone here can link studies trying to see if there is a link to those two behaviors but there is no consensus on whether homosexuality is a hormone imbalance, a mental disorder, or something people willfully choose to engage in and i'm not God nor sophisticated enough to make any sure claim on any of that.

but i won't hold it against religious people to find homosexuality a sin or an act against nature because technically for consummation purposes homosexuality serves no purpose and like i said earlier i think people have the right to not find it appealing but we as humans cannot treat them as subhuman or give them any lesser rights than any other person would have...and no marriage isn't a right its a custom but its also become an issue of legality so thats something states have to tackle on what type of unions they classify in terms of legal privileges

Majority of humans identify as heterosexual...For me and most Christians to accept the lifestyle we will need proof beyond any doubt that being gay is a natural condition.

Since no gay gene has been identified I think it's justified to call it a perversion since most people do not identify with that lifestyle same way most people don't identify with pedophilia.