Jay-Z, Gay Marriage: Obama's New Stance Is 'The Right Thing To Do' (VIDEO)

[|A-Man|]

Is this really a 14 pg thread about Jay-Z agreeing with Obama about gay marriage and ppl arguing that and the same old black civil rights aint the same as gay civil rights or should I actually look through the thread to enjoy the lulz?

 

[culturecarnage]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by malikdagoat

What really irritates me about this whole gay marriage movement is the fact the supporters of the movement are so damn argumentative with those who don't support. As soon as somebody says they don't support gay marriage there's a bucket of hate and insults being thrown at them, like damn I ain't allowed to have my own opinion.

Serious question, if we're going to change the definition of marriage to allow two ppl of the same sex to get married, why can't a man have multiple wives?..or a woman have multiple husbands?... or allow people to marry their cousins, brothers..sisters, uncles, etc

If we're going to get rid of the constraints on the definition of marriage we have to do it for EVERYBODY. But I bet the same people yelling and flaming others for not supporting gay marriage wouldn't be nearly as supportive of the types of marriages I mentioned.

makes for a legal nightmare to have to go back and redefine marriage in this instance, and all the other instances like you say. 
Plus to all my gay people out there. Do you really want to be married? The institution in itself is failing all across the world. As a matter of fact, industrialization and declining marriage rates are directly related.  What about civil unions was not enough?

Plus I see people saying that "well blacks weren't allowed to marry whites, this is the same thing". 

WRONG

Blacks and whites could not be married because to begin with blacks legally weren't even considered full humans

. This is literally like complaining about not being able to marry your pet ( hence the nature of black/ white relations in this country).  A person and 3/5th's of a person didn't legally constitute a marriage just like a farmer and his horse can't tie the knot.

When in history of this country has a homosexual been legally on the law books deemed as a sub human species?

now? by not being allowed to marry even though through out the history over this nation the only real definition is a binding union of two consenting adults as one before the eyes of the law, tha definition was modified slightly after the ending of coverture and women were given legal personhood even in marriage.
the reason bigamy/polygamy was disallowed after briefly being allowed in the territories is because marriage is between two people requires the consent of two adults, when adding a third or fourth does the consent of only the two who become married matter or is the consent of all needed? also bigamy was mormon practice in the territories where mormons occupied nearly every government position in places like utah and oregon so the outlawing of bigamy was seen as a way to prevent religion from encroaching on government.

 none of you know history at all, its sad that you want to sit here and argue this with no facts but pure bigotry.

lastly, 

at the idea of testtube babies taking over natural reproduction. minorities (black, latino, asian) annual births just surpassed white births, and while artificial insemination, ivf... is predominately a white practice the offspring of those births have a 6% higher chance of a genetic defect (skewing higher with multiples), meaning nearly 12% of all "artificially" produced children will have some kind of disability. 2% of which will require lifetime care. 

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by culturecarnage

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by malikdagoat

What really irritates me about this whole gay marriage movement is the fact the supporters of the movement are so damn argumentative with those who don't support. As soon as somebody says they don't support gay marriage there's a bucket of hate and insults being thrown at them, like damn I ain't allowed to have my own opinion.

Serious question, if we're going to change the definition of marriage to allow two ppl of the same sex to get married, why can't a man have multiple wives?..or a woman have multiple husbands?... or allow people to marry their cousins, brothers..sisters, uncles, etc

If we're going to get rid of the constraints on the definition of marriage we have to do it for EVERYBODY. But I bet the same people yelling and flaming others for not supporting gay marriage wouldn't be nearly as supportive of the types of marriages I mentioned.

makes for a legal nightmare to have to go back and redefine marriage in this instance, and all the other instances like you say. 
Plus to all my gay people out there. Do you really want to be married? The institution in itself is failing all across the world. As a matter of fact, industrialization and declining marriage rates are directly related.  What about civil unions was not enough?

Plus I see people saying that "well blacks weren't allowed to marry whites, this is the same thing". 

WRONG

Blacks and whites could not be married because to begin with blacks legally weren't even considered full humans

. This is literally like complaining about not being able to marry your pet ( hence the nature of black/ white relations in this country).  A person and 3/5th's of a person didn't legally constitute a marriage just like a farmer and his horse can't tie the knot.

When in history of this country has a homosexual been legally on the law books deemed as a sub human species?

now? by not being allowed to marry even though through out the history over this nation the only real definition is a binding union of two consenting adults as one before the eyes of the law, tha definition was modified slightly after the ending of coverture and women were given legal personhood even in marriage.
the reason bigamy was disallowed after briefly being allowed in the territories is because marriage is between two people requires the consent of two adults, when adding a third or fourth does the consent of only the two who become married matter or is the consent of all needed? also bigamy was mormon practice in the territories where mormons occupied nearly every government position in places like utah and oregon so the outlawing of bigamy was seen as a way to prevent religion from encroaching on government.

 none of you know history at all, its sad that you want to sit here and argue this with no facts but pure bigotry.

Tell us where the bigotry is. 
You honestly think that someone shackled and treated and classified as sub human is the same as gay people not having the right to get married?

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

that's the bigotry

 

[sundoobie]

Deuce King wrote:

Why did the actions of a few individuals that were apart of the cause deter you from continuing to support them if that's what you truly believed and voted for??

Truthfully and personally I don't believe in gay marriage.  But who am I to judge?  I knew the issue of gay marriage in CA won't end until a law allows them to marry legally so based of that I voted no on Prop 8.  I vote for the good of society and not just based on my beliefs.
Then the backlash happened and I knew several people and businesses that were bullied by gay right groups for donating to the anti-gay marriage campaign. Those people that donated and voted are free to do what they felt was their right so they shouldn't be harassed for how they voted.  So to me after that, I was done.  I would probably abstain for voting for either side now. 

 

[culturecarnage]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by culturecarnage

Originally Posted by Wr

makes for a legal nightmare to have to go back and redefine marriage in this instance, and all the other instances like you say. 
Plus to all my gay people out there. Do you really want to be married? The institution in itself is failing all across the world. As a matter of fact, industrialization and declining marriage rates are directly related.  What about civil unions was not enough?

Plus I see people saying that "well blacks weren't allowed to marry whites, this is the same thing". 

WRONG

Blacks and whites could not be married because to begin with blacks legally weren't even considered full humans

. This is literally like complaining about not being able to marry your pet ( hence the nature of black/ white relations in this country).  A person and 3/5th's of a person didn't legally constitute a marriage just like a farmer and his horse can't tie the knot.

When in history of this country has a homosexual been legally on the law books deemed as a sub human species?

now? by not being allowed to marry even though through out the history over this nation the only real definition is a binding union of two consenting adults as one before the eyes of the law, tha definition was modified slightly after the ending of coverture and women were given legal personhood even in marriage.
the reason bigamy was disallowed after briefly being allowed in the territories is because marriage is between two people requires the consent of two adults, when adding a third or fourth does the consent of only the two who become married matter or is the consent of all needed? also bigamy was mormon practice in the territories where mormons occupied nearly every government position in places like utah and oregon so the outlawing of bigamy was seen as a way to prevent religion from encroaching on government.

 none of you know history at all, its sad that you want to sit here and argue this with no facts but pure bigotry.

Tell us where the bigotry is. 
You honestly think that someone shackled and treated and classified as sub human is the same as gay people not having the right to get married?

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

that's the bigotry

oh so you want to play the who suffered more game, the one where everyone loses? no thanks. what am i supposed to say? i'll take black gay woman for $2000? FOH


and yes i do i think all oppression based on socially constructed ideals is out and out wrong, i don't rank them.

 

[wr]

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by culturecarnage

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by culturecarnage

now? by not being allowed to marry even though through out the history over this nation the only real definition is a binding union of two consenting adults as one before the eyes of the law, tha definition was modified slightly after the ending of coverture and women were given legal personhood even in marriage.
the reason bigamy was disallowed after briefly being allowed in the territories is because marriage is between two people requires the consent of two adults, when adding a third or fourth does the consent of only the two who become married matter or is the consent of all needed? also bigamy was mormon practice in the territories where mormons occupied nearly every government position in places like utah and oregon so the outlawing of bigamy was seen as a way to prevent religion from encroaching on government.

 none of you know history at all, its sad that you want to sit here and argue this with no facts but pure bigotry.

Tell us where the bigotry is.
You honestly think that someone shackled and treated and classified as sub human is the same as gay people not having the right to get married?

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

that's the bigotry

oh so you want to play the who suffered more game, the one where everyone loses? no thanks. what am i supposed to say? i'll take black gay woman for $2000? FOH


and yes i do i think all oppression based on socially constructed ideals is out and out wrong, i don't rank them.

But I specifically asked you to point out a time where gays have been claimed as sub human legally and your answer was "now?" based on the fact gay people can't get married. Those two things def do not hold the same weight. I said it wasn't because that's not true. Gay people can still own property, go to school, look you in the eye etc....Hence me saying you are wrong, they are not equal. You then go back to the good old suffering game analogy.

 

[culturecarnage]

See I would post where I get my data from but it's clear that your get your information news entertainment shows while I dissect articles from academic journals. 
No information worth having is easy to get.

 

[culturecarnage]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by culturecarnage

Originally Posted by Wr


Tell us where the bigotry is.�
You honestly think that someone shackled and treated and classified as sub human is the same as gay people not having the right to get married?

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

that's the bigotry

oh so you want to play the who suffered more game, the one where everyone loses? no thanks. what am i supposed to say? i'll take black gay woman for $2000? FOH


and yes i do i think all oppression based on socially constructed ideals is out and out wrong, i don't rank them.

But I specifically asked you to point out a time where gays have been claimed as sub human legally and your answer was "now?" based on the fact gay people can't get married. Those two things def do not hold the same weight. I said it wasn't because that's not true. Gay people can still own property, go to school, look you in the eye etc....Hence me saying you are wrong, they are not equal. You then go back to the good old suffering game analogy.�

you don't know gay history to say that they haven't. gays have been persecuted violently and still are.

 

[snaggykicks]

welp

 

[rko2004]

Originally Posted by culturecarnage

See I would post where I get my data from but it's clear that your get your information news entertainment shows while I dissect articles from academic journals. 
No information worth having is easy to get.

You should post it anyway so he and the rest of us who visit this thread can know what you do.

And lets just say this. Black suffered a great deal for a very long time. Our ancestors were ripped from their land. Rapped mutilated, raped and forced to work for free for hundreds of years.
Gays haven't gone through that.

Now it is agreeable that its discrimination under the context of some can marry and another group can't.

The thing that confuses me is the anger on the gay rights side. Not that they feel slighted, but the disrespect displayed when things don't go their way at first. And no its not all. But I haven't seen 1 of you step in and say "yo chill. There is a more respectful way and mature way to handle this".

 

[lobotomybeats]

Originally Posted by malikdagoat

Originally Posted by lobotomybeats

Originally Posted by malikdagoat

What really irritates me about this whole gay marriage movement is the fact the supporters of the movement are so damn argumentative with those who don't support. As soon as somebody says they don't support gay marriage there's a bucket of hate and insults being thrown at them, like damn I ain't allowed to have my own opinion.

Serious question, if we're going to change the definition of marriage to allow two ppl of the same sex to get married, why can't a man have multiple wives?..or a woman have multiple husbands?... or allow people to marry their cousins, brothers..sisters, uncles, etc

For the most part I don't actually don't have a problem with polygamy.  Actually, you would think with the amount of extramarital affair sex scandals involving politicians, they would be huge proponents for polygamy. Unlike homosexual marriages, there are intriguing arguments against polygamy. I know in some polygamous societies lower status men don't get to marry at all because the women want the higher status men.  Also, in the most common traditional sense of the word polygamy (1 man, many wives) the women are repressed and under the man's control.  Oh and if polygamy is ever legalized, a man better have the right to have multiple husbands and women have the right to multiple wives.

The incest question is ridiculous and not even worth a response deeper than 'gene pool.'

How is it ridiculous?If we're going to open up the definition of marriage, you have to open it up for EVERYBODY. I know the possible consequences of polygamy and incest, however who is the government to not allow people to make that decision?You can't tell people "aye, you can't have two wives" but in the next sentence tell Tom and Ben they can get married.Either define marriage as between and man and a woman or open it up for any human to marry another human (despite the possible results), that's all I'm saying.

There are no adverse effects of same-sex marriage.  You can't say that about incest.

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by culturecarnage

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by culturecarnage

oh so you want to play the who suffered more game, the one where everyone loses? no thanks. what am i supposed to say? i'll take black gay woman for $2000? FOH


and yes i do i think all oppression based on socially constructed ideals is out and out wrong, i don't rank them.

But I specifically asked you to point out a time where gays have been claimed as sub human legally and your answer was "now?" based on the fact gay people can't get married. Those two things def do not hold the same weight. I said it wasn't because that's not true. Gay people can still own property, go to school, look you in the eye etc....Hence me saying you are wrong, they are not equal. You then go back to the good old suffering game analogy.�

you don't know gay history to say that they haven't. gays have been persecuted violently and still are.

We all know this. I'm saying where in America is the government passing legislature saying that gay people are unfit for society and being classified as man like the rest of us?

 

[culturecarnage]

The State, Sexuality, and Reproductive Freedom ed. by Rosalind Pollack Petchesky (Great easy to ready, really illuminating about state efforts to control people through sex)
Race, Ethnicity, and Sexuality ed. by Joane Nagel

A great journal is Gender, Work, and Organization, publishes a couple of editions a year if you're in college or have a friend there I'm sure they have online access as them to print some stuff for you.

If you want to read something casually that will be illuminating but a great read check out bell hooks. GREAT BOOKS that run the gamut on different subtopics but she really address how race, sex, and capitalism intersect

If you want to get in depth and read something that requires a lot of analysis read Michel Foucault, (discipline and punish, he talks about the birth of the prison system and will blow your mind.)

A book I think everyone should own is Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paolo Freire.

 

[culturecarnage]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by culturecarnage

Originally Posted by Wr


But I specifically asked you to point out a time where gays have been claimed as sub human legally and your answer was "now?" based on the fact gay people can't get married. Those two things def do not hold the same weight. I said it wasn't because that's not true. Gay people can still own property, go to school, look you in the eye etc....Hence me saying you are wrong, they are not equal. You then go back to the good old suffering game analogy.�

you don't know gay history to say that they haven't. gays have been persecuted violently and still are.

We all know this. I'm saying where in America is the government passing legislature saying that gay people are unfit for society and being classified as man like the rest of us?

denying them rights to adopt children, teach in school, get married....

 

[culturecarnage]

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Originally Posted by culturecarnage

See I would post where I get my data from but it's clear that your get your information news entertainment shows while I dissect articles from academic journals. 
No information worth having is easy to get.

You should post it anyway so he and the rest of us who visit this thread can know what you do.

And lets just say this. Black suffered a great deal for a very long time. Our ancestors were ripped from their land. Rapped mutilated, raped and forced to work for free for hundreds of years.
Gays haven't gone through that.

Now it is agreeable that its discrimination under the context of some can marry and another group can't.

The thing that confuses me is the anger on the gay rights side. Not that they feel slighted, but the disrespect displayed when things don't go their way at first. And no its not all. But I haven't seen 1 of you step in and say "yo chill. There is a more respectful way and mature way to handle this".

people don't get rights by sitting quietly and waiting for them to be handed you have to fight. the civil rights movement was violent, the civil war (though fought for various political reasons) violent. 
there is a lot of talk among second wave feminists who worry that women of my generation aren't radical enough and wont uphold the strides they made. the recent increase in restricts on women's reproductive rights give some credence to that.

lastly i dont deny that slavery is awful and that in the us dragged its feet in instituting equal rights but playing the who suffered more game only serves to create more categories of people when really there should be less. i dont mean to deny race but band together against those in power then picking at each other while they sit back and watch. its stupid. classic divide and conquer.

 

[wsdesigner14]

Michel Foucault


Never thought I'd see a Foucault reference on NT. As has been said, I would love to get back into this discussion but culturecarnage has said much of what I would like to say, and has done it far better than I could.

 

[wr]

I've read most of that stuff already and it's partly why i have my views.

 

[rko2004]

Originally Posted by culturecarnage

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Originally Posted by culturecarnage

See I would post where I get my data from but it's clear that your get your information news entertainment shows while I dissect articles from academic journals. 
No information worth having is easy to get.

You should post it anyway so he and the rest of us who visit this thread can know what you do.

And lets just say this. Black suffered a great deal for a very long time. Our ancestors were ripped from their land. Rapped mutilated, raped and forced to work for free for hundreds of years.
Gays haven't gone through that.

Now it is agreeable that its discrimination under the context of some can marry and another group can't.

The thing that confuses me is the anger on the gay rights side. Not that they feel slighted, but the disrespect displayed when things don't go their way at first. And no its not all. But I haven't seen 1 of you step in and say "yo chill. There is a more respectful way and mature way to handle this".

people don't get rights by sitting quietly and waiting for them to be handed you have to fight. the civil rights movement was violent, the civil war (though fought for various political reasons) violent. 
there is a lot of talk among second wave feminists who worry that women of my generation aren't radical enough and wont uphold the strides they made. the recent increase in restricts on women's reproductive rights give some credence to that.

lastly i dont deny that slavery is awful and that in the us dragged its feet in instituting equal rights but playing the who suffered more game only serves to create more categories of people when really there should be less. i dont mean to deny race but band together against those in power then picking at each other while they sit back and watch. its stupid. classic divide and conquer.

I'm not talking about sitting back and getting railroaded. I'm talking about the basic level of respect. Sometimes even here its absent.

Dr. King approach.

 

[Jordan8]

Originally Posted by True Blues

lobotomybeats wrote:

---

So please tell me this, is it more offensive to draw comparisons between the two struggles as many activists do, or is it more offensive for you to use your ancestor's struggles to belittle, denigrate, and mock someone else's struggles?  You constantly feign being offended by a group  making these comparisons because they were never lynched or sprayed by hoses. Yet here you are co-opting past struggles, struggles that you yourself have never endured, to make a point against a group just wanting equality! If homosexuals were granted the same rights that you have, would you somehow be offended that they didn't have to go through lynchings and being sprayed by hoses to attain those rights?  Would those rights be less valid and less reason to celebrate because, as you see it, they didn't go through the same hells to be seen as equal? You use examples of atrocities you haven't ever endured to say someone's struggles were so superior that comparisons can't be made! $$@+%+#, please, dude!

Homosexuals aren't trying to take away from the struggles of African Americans.  Nope, they just want the same kind of equality that your ancestors wanted.  They want to be accepted despite the obvious differences.  If you fail to see the similarities you are more clueless than I previously thought, which is saying a whole hell of a lot.


Oh and since when did homosexuals all become white?  Obviously you haven't ever heard of the stereotypes that surrounded AIDS originally...

Thank you.



  

What? Where did I say All Homosexuals are white?

I said this is the first time a white man has been denied a civil luxury in this country. So of course the passion is more "fierce"

I know plenty of black gay people dude. They could careless about getting married. They are still black at the end of the day. Got bigger problems.

This is a white privileged issue.

Bob's a nice upstanding white american and so is Jake there clean cut Americans. How dare they not be able to get married there white for god's sake.

And if your brains are too clouded to understand my point earlier. Im saying comparing a race of people to a group of people's sexual preference or orientation (becuase its both) is beyond disrespecful. Becuase of the convience a gay person has to hide his or her "gayness"

Why in 2012 when the leader of the free world is black is it such a surge for gay rights? Why now when its "Ok to be gay?" O yea because you can hide being gay.

Blacks tho they couldnt hide being black. You see they were getting there heads blown off just for being dark they wasnt just black when there penises got hard. They werent just black when they were sexually attracted to someone. It was a 24/7 gig. 

And no I havent endured the same atrocities I mentioned. But you know what my Uncle did, My grandma did, My granddad was a veteran and denied a government job cause of his skin while J. Edgar Hoover got to "hide" his tabooness while he was the most powerful man in the country. So no its not the same

Atleast Im understanding enough to realize that most non-blacks would favor fighting for the 1 "right" whites...who happen to be gay dont have. Moreso then to fight for African Americans multiple discriminations.

But just say that so we can move on. Stop acting like you care about civil liberties for all people. Cause you dont
  

 

[culturecarnage]

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Originally Posted by culturecarnage

Originally Posted by RKO2004


You should post it anyway so he and the rest of us who visit this thread can know what you do.

And lets just say this. Black suffered a great deal for a very long time. Our ancestors were ripped from their land. Rapped mutilated, raped and forced to work for free for hundreds of years.
Gays haven't gone through that.

Now it is agreeable that its discrimination under the context of some can marry and another group can't.

The thing that confuses me is the anger on the gay rights side. Not that they feel slighted, but the disrespect displayed when things don't go their way at first. And no its not all. But I haven't seen 1 of you step in and say "yo chill. There is a more respectful way and mature way to handle this".

people don't get rights by sitting quietly and waiting for them to be handed you have to fight. the civil rights movement was violent, the civil war (though fought for various political reasons) violent. 
there is a lot of talk among second wave feminists who worry that women of my generation aren't radical enough and wont uphold the strides they made. the recent increase in restricts on women's reproductive rights give some credence to that.

lastly i dont deny that slavery is awful and that in the us dragged its feet in instituting equal rights but playing the who suffered more game only serves to create more categories of people when really there should be less. i dont mean to deny race but band together against those in power then picking at each other while they sit back and watch. its stupid. classic divide and conquer.

I'm not talking about sitting back and getting railroaded. I'm talking about the basic level of respect. Sometimes even here its absent.

Dr. King approach.

i remembering being on the debate team in high school and my mentor telling me that whenever two people are on two opposing sides of an argument the middle ground is lost and both sides travel to the extremes, and thats what kind of happens in every day life. dr. king like gandhi is a someone who  inordinate personal strength which is hard to come by. to be sure the truth is never found is extremes because it is never black or white but as mcgeorge bundy (former dean at harvard) said "gray is the color of truth" so this kind of intensely divided split in a way is sort of necessary because it creates a space for someone to come and occupy a middle... but thats my gandhian/zen way of looking at things. the middle wont come to exist until the baby boomers get out of the way though. i honestly believe that we should institute some kind of law like FDR tried to pass for the supreme court that forced their retirement at 70 because they couldn't get into the social mores of the time, same thing for voting, over 70 and you dont get to vote, not your world, but thats agist and  cant support it on principle. damn integrity.

 

[vatech733]

Originally Posted by ONEFORALL

Reading this topic as a Finnish person is super funny. You guys are still so conservative idiots.

Yupp....and it's sad. But I absolutely hate the phrase..."there's some things you don't play god with". Who the hell are you to pick and choose what we play god with!? When you get sick you want to receive the best treatment possible and "play god". "don't pray when it rains if you don't pray when the sun shines"

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by vatech733

Originally Posted by ONEFORALL

Reading this topic as a Finnish person is super funny. You guys are still so conservative idiots.

Yupp....and it's sad. But I absolutely hate the phrase..."there's some things you don't play god with". Who the hell are you to pick and choose what we play god with!? When you get sick you want to receive the best treatment possible and "play god". "don't pray when it rains if you don't pray when the sun shines"

Hello. I'm God.

 

[pig love]

Ha! Ha! BREAKING NEWS!!

born where? 

 

[vatech733]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by vatech733

Originally Posted by ONEFORALL

Reading this topic as a Finnish person is super funny. You guys are still so conservative idiots.

Yupp....and it's sad. But I absolutely hate the phrase..."there's some things you don't play god with". Who the hell are you to pick and choose what we play god with!? When you get sick you want to receive the best treatment possible and "play god". "don't pray when it rains if you don't pray when the sun shines"

Hello. I'm God.

   your idea about what will happen if gay marriage is legalized is 

You should consider writing science fiction novels