Gay love

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Your assertion was that it was "funny" for Democrats to make an analogy between civil rights and gay rights because it was "the Democrats who were opposed to civil rights for blacks".

This doesn't make any sense.

As you've wisely indicated (aka the preemptive back track ) not all Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act.

Certainly so, the legislation was proposed by a Democratic President and passed by a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate.

Remember, Democrats in the south were originally advocates strong states rights and slavery as an economic necessity (i.e. at the time more conservative). This was the culture that persisted even as slavery was outlawed. The South's loyalty to their party kept many voting as Democrats until the Democratic party shifted further to the Left...and ultimately drove Southern Democrats to the Republican Party which is precisely why Southern states tend to vote Republican today.

Hell, perhaps the most vocal Democratic opponent to Civil Rights was Strom Thurmond...who switched parties and became a Republican in 1964.

Republicans did join ranks with Democrats and made the Civil Rights Act an example of bi-partisan legislation...back then...but we all know the Republican party has moved to the Right...characterized by Nixon's Southern Strategy, the Moral Majority and more recently the bastardization of even Ronald Reagan's legacy.

So I'm not sure what's all that funny about it. I guess it could be considered ironic, assuming you lacked a basic understanding of American history.

As for the black response, here's a pretty interesting take...

Is the black church guilty of spiritual hypocrisy in same-sex marriage debate? – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

-spence

Spence, I didn't "backtrack" when I said some Democrats supported civil rights. I would never say anything so stupid as saying that zero democrats supportwed civil rights. Just because you but your foot in your mouth several times a day, don't assume everyone else wallows in ignorance too.

"ultimately drove Southern Democrats to the Republican Party which is precisely why Southern states tend to vote Republican today."

Correct. You finally got one right.

"Certainly so, the legislation was proposed by a Democratic President and passed by a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate. "

That's true, but midleading, and you know it. The Republicans were of course in the minority. But you keep dismissing the fact (gee, I wonder why) that a much larger percentage of Republicans voted for the bill, than Democrats. I'll repeat. Of the 27 Senators who voted against, 21 were Democrats. Of the 126 reps who voted against, 91 were Democrats. Talk about an inconvenient truth...for you, that is. You can't process facts that don't fit your agenda, even if those facts are 60 years old. Amazing.

Again, in typical liberal fashion, you assume blacks should support homosexuals because they too were discriminated against. Blacks don't see it that way, no matter how many times you look down your noses at them condescendingly, and smugly suggest otherwise.

"bi-partisan legislation...back then"

Ahhh. So you are implying that Republicans aren't interested in bipartisanship anymore. Interesting. Spence, do me a favor, look back, and see who has been bi-oartisan with Supreme Court nominees, and which party is obstructionist? Republicans routinely confirm the most liberal justices nominated by Democrats (the voted to confirm Sotomayor and Ginsburg, for example). Remember what happened to Bush's nominee, Robert Bork. The Democrat refusal to confirm Bork was so partisan and unprecedented, it gave way to a new term, called "Borking". Bork, as an appellate judge, had never been overturned by a higher court. His confirmation was denied by Democrats. Sotomayor had been overturned many times, and she was confirmed. Interesting, if your mind isn't so closed off that you have to stick your head in the sand because it makes your side look reprehensible.

Again Spence, I know you want to believe that Democrats are always compromising, and that Republicans are always obstructing. If you could prove that, I'd support your assertion. But once again, you cannot.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But you keep dismissing the fact (gee, I wonder why) that a much larger percentage of Republicans voted for the bill, than Democrats.

Actually I gave a very clear and reasoned explanation.

Again, in typical liberal fashion, you assume blacks should support homosexuals because they too were discriminated against. Blacks don't see it that way, no matter how many times you look down your noses at them condescendingly, and smugly suggest otherwise.

Actually, the article points out that black leaders use the same biblical approach to condemn homosexuality as were used to promote slavery.

This is very interesting no?

Ahhh. So you are implying that Republicans aren't interested in bipartisanship anymore. Interesting. Spence, do me a favor, look back, and see who has been bi-oartisan with Supreme Court nominees, and which party is obstructionist? Republicans routinely confirm the most liberal justices nominated by Democrats (the voted to confirm Sotomayor and Ginsburg, for example). Remember what happened to Bush's nominee, Robert Bork. The Democrat refusal to confirm Bork was so partisan and unprecedented, it gave way to a new term, called "Borking". Bork, as an appellate judge, had never been overturned by a higher court. His confirmation was denied by Democrats. Sotomayor had been overturned many times, and she was confirmed. Interesting, if your mind isn't so closed off that you have to stick your head in the sand because it makes your side look reprehensible.

Here you go again...taking something tangent to the conversation just to attempt a point nobody even asked you to make.

Sotomayor managed to get 9 Republican votes...and you're citing this as a bi-partisan accomplishment?

Wow.

As for real bi-partisan legislation, right now I don't believe it's possible unless perhaps it was related to national defense.

Again Spence, I know you want to believe that Democrats are always compromising, and that Republicans are always obstructing. If you could prove that, I'd support your assertion. But once again, you cannot.

I never claimed democrats were always compromising.

-spence

[likwid]

Jesus effing christ, let em get married already.
Everyone can take the religious/bigot/whatever excuses why they can't and get stuffed.

Marriage is a sham in this country with the rate of divorce. Where's the 'religious' outrage over that?

[Sea Dangles]

18 years for me tomorrow.
Great years
no sham

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

18 years for me tomorrow.
Great years
no sham

Exemplary...I'm nearing 10.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by likwid

Marriage is a sham in this country with the rate of divorce. Where's the 'religious' outrage over that?

you are aware that the divorce rate has been steadily declining in this country and is currently at it's lowest level since 1970(albiet for a host of reasons) but you didn't mention any factors regarding the causes for the rate before declaring marriage a sham..

btw, if marriage is indeed a "sham", why would gay couples be so anxious to participate in a "sham"?

U.S. divorce rate declines, reason unclear
2012-03-17

By David Crary / The Associated Press
NEW YORK -- By the numbers, divorce just isn't what it used to be.

Despite the common notion that America remains plagued by a divorce epidemic, the national per capita divorce rate has declined steadily since its peak in 1981 and is now at its lowest level since 1970.

[Jim in CT]

To the liberals who are making saints out of Obama and Biden for supporting gay marriage, here is #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney doing the same exact thing in 2009.

Video of the Day: #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney Endorsing Gay Marriage in 2009 - Garance Franke-Ruta - Politics - The Atlantic

[Fly Rod]

No body here can really believe that OBAMA believes in gay marriges...U just do not change your mind over nite.....if he believed, why did he not mention that he was for gay marriges in 2008..2009..2010...2011

It is just a politcal ploy which I think has back fired...even some gays believe it is only a political move.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

No body here can really believe that OBAMA believes in gay marriges...U just do not change your mind over nite.....if he believed, why did he not mention that he was for gay marriges in 2008..2009..2010...2011

You don't? 6-7 years ago, I was a liberal and felt like taxes should be higher.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

you are aware that the divorce rate has been steadily declining in this country and is currently at it's lowest level since 1970(albiet for a host of reasons) but you didn't mention any factors regarding the causes for the rate before declaring marriage a sham..

btw, if marriage is indeed a "sham", why would gay couples be so anxious to participate in a "sham"?

The sanctity of marriage is a sham, sorry, I forgot everything had to be spelled out for you.

U.S. divorce rate declines, reason unclear
2012-03-17

By David Crary / The Associated Press
NEW YORK -- By the numbers, divorce just isn't what it used to be.

Despite the common notion that America remains plagued by a divorce epidemic, the national per capita divorce rate has declined steadily since its peak in 1981 and is now at its lowest level since 1970.

The 2012 Statistical Abstract: Births, Deaths, Marriages, & Divorces

Scroll down to the bottom, tell me, how many marriages were there vs divorces?