New York State Lawmakers Reject Gay Marriage Bill

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by HarlemToTheBronx

Originally Posted by ninjahood

other then da fact that imma avid rap fan which is part of black culture

"Black" is not a culture, dude.

You can be 100% Hispanic and eat arroz con gondules y platanos every night, and still be black.

LOL @ RAP

Envisions black people in Sudan bumping Young Jeezy at traditional events.

 

[ninjahood]

hiphop has grown so big that people don't associate it as a black culture anymore but you know what, thats what it is.

same way as if bachata blue up world wide it wouldn't be just dominican culture anymore...same point though.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people

 

[mytmouse76]

dude wiki'd black people...

this is going to be great...

 

[hueyp in louiev]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

hiphop has grown so big that people don't associate it as a black culture anymore but you know what, thats what it is.

same way as if bachata blue up world wide it wouldn't be just dominican culture anymore...same point though.

 

[queencitysneakerqueen]

How did this go from gay to racial

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people

 

[quik1987]

Ninjahood, just for curiosity sake, do you use the N word?

 

[swoboydehteezy]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by ninjahood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people

 

[goinham]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by ninjahood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people

this dude referenced the wikipedia for black people, im done here.

this man's ignorance, pigheadedness, brickheadedness, uncompromising nature knows no bounds

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by HueyP in LouieV

Originally Posted by ninjahood

hiphop has grown so big that people don't associate it as a black culture anymore but you know what, thats what it is.

same way as if bachata blue up world wide it wouldn't be just dominican culture anymore...same point though.

typo, pssh i'll still wear that

black is a culture as well as a skin color. and imma stick by it cuz and da end of da day, when i walk around da streets its what i see.

NT sure as hell ain't da majority on this issue.

*folds arms*

 

[antonlavey]

^^^^^

 

[kinglouisxiv]

I wish I lived in California, it seems to be the only part of this nation that hasn't forgotten the importance of public activism and protest.
I'd like to think us Californians live up to the ideal of a socially equitable state, but the fact is the only group active enough to changeour constitution are those who mounted enough political support to strip same-sex couples of their natural and legal right to marry the person of their choice.

Although homosexual men and women may experience a greater degree of tolerance and protection under the law in California, it's a glaring stain on ouruniversal human rights records that our state constitution now reads:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
And, if anyone is interested in same-sex marriage in African culture (which it would seem is the direction this thread is taking), here's anexcerpt from an interesting book on documented same-sex marriage in multiples African cultures:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zj...ge&q="Woman-woman marriage in Africa"&f=false

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by mytmouse76

dude wiki'd black people...

this is going to be great...

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by KingLouisXIV

I wish I lived in California, it seems to be the only part of this nation that hasn't forgotten the importance of public activism and protest.

I'd like to think us Californians live up to the ideal of a socially equitable state, but the fact is the only group active enough to change our constitution are those who mounted enough political support to strip same-sex couples of their natural and legal right to marry the person of their choice.

Although homosexual men and women may experience a greater degree of tolerance and protection under the law in California, it's a glaring stain on our universal human rights records that our state constitution now reads:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
And, if anyone is interested in same-sex marriage in African culture (which it would seem is the direction this thread is taking), here's an excerpt from an interesting book on documented same-sex marriage in multiples African cultures:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZjbESL6YWU0C&lpg=PA255&ots=WdlOOaKAAq&dq=%22Woman-woman%20marriage%20in%20Africa%22&pg=PA255#v=onepage&q=%22Woman-woman%20marriage%20in%20Africa%22&f=false

I don't think it was the fact that that was the only group that was active enough, they just seem to have been outnumbered and the anti-gay marriage sideseemed to be a lot more organized. This brings to light another dimension of this issue, which is that homosexuals don't have a voice. They don't havesomeone that universally (or nearly universally) speaks for their group as a whole, whereas many religious groups have leaders who speak out against it, aswell as a number of other individuals.

Point being, homosexuals need a voice. Something of a Harvey Milk, but on nationwide scale.

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by an dee 51o

In California, 70% of African Americans polled voted to pass Prop 8 (banning gay marriage). By FAR the highest percentage of any other race. Fact.


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1

You know that this means absolutely nothing right?

Originally Posted by mytmouse76

how big is the black population overall in CA?

EXACTLY.

People see [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]"70% of African Americans voted to ban gay marriage"[/color]and automatically link the defeat of proposition 8, in California, to black people and black people alone--which is unbelievably sad. If inquiring mindsactually put in the effort to conduct their very own research, instead of readily ingesting the farce that the "media" serves up, not only would theybe more informed, ironically, they would also realize just how badly blacks are being scapegoated and ultimately demonized (yet again) with carefully plannedsubversive statements; statements that go something like: [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]"70% of AfricanAmericans voted to ban gay marriage"[/color]....

If you hadn't realized this, let me be the first to tell you that this statement: [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]"70% of African Americans voted to ban gay marriage"[/color] MEANS NOTHING. It servesbut one purpose, and that is to turn one minority group (homosexuals/gays) against another (African Americans/blacks) in a manner that is very much exemplifiedby the age old strategy of "divide and conquer". And it has worked perfectly--because one one side, you have homosexuals, who have become very muchoffended and angered by the "fact" another minority group, blacks, one that has tasted and nursed the pangs of injustice and inequality allthroughout American history, actively thwarted and derailed their chance at equality (or at least on facet of equality). And on the other side, you haveblacks, who solely as a consequence of the religious beliefs, voted in favor of proposition 8 because they believed that the passage of such a law wouldinfringe on one aspect of the belief system that has been a guide to them, and for them, since their days as slaves on Americas plantations--(I'mpresuming).

Perfect storm and perfect plan. Have these two loathsome minority groups get at each others throats as "we" sit back, within the shadows, at the topof the social ladder, pulling the puppet strings. Because "we" know that the more they fight and hate each other, the less likely it will be thatthey will join forces, under one umbrella, to end the inequality that "we" profit from--socially, politically, and economically.

Now the question is, whose this "we" S.A is referring to?--Why, the very same population that has always benefited, implicitely and explicitely, fromthe unequal treatment of all minority groups:

White--Christian--(Conservative)--Heterosexual--Males. F____ what you heard, but this is THE MOST "dominant" population in the United States becausemembers of this group possess dominance in the every category that is considered pertinent in American society--race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation.

But what does this all have to do with the "fact" that [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]"70% ofAfrican Americans voted to ban gay marriage..."[/color]...? Well, as previously alluded to, that statement is deceptive in nature and purposely so. Itcovertly suggests that African Americans (blacks--a race) are majorly responsible for the pass of proposition 8 (ban of gay marriage) because it implies that,70% of the votes in favor of proposition 8 (the ban of gay marriage) were cast by African Americans and/or blacks whereas, 30% of the remaining votes were castby non blacks. THIS is the deception that this being propagated in the media and the FARCE that homosexuals, and many in favor of "gay marriage",have come to believe.

In reality, the passage of proposition 8 was primarily due to White--Christian--(Conservative)--Heterosexual--Males, by a huge margin. All you need to do ischeck the #s.

The 2008 estimated population of California (from the U.S Census Bereau): 36,756,666

Racial breakdown of California's population in 2008 (from the U.S Census Bureau):

• Whites -- *42.3%
• Blacks -- 6.7%

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html


Racial breakdown of California's population in 2000 (from the U.S CensusBureau):

• Whites -- 59.5%
• Blacks -- 6.7%

http://factfinder.census....1_U&geo_id=04000US06


Racial breakdown of California's population between 2005-2007 (from the American CommunitySurvey):

• Whites -- 59.7%
• Blacks -- 6.7%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California#Population


Now regardless of which stats you choose to believe, I think it is overwhelmingly clear that whites have been, and continue to be, the dominant racialpopulation in California.

Now using the 2008 racial breakdown estimates, because I'm airing on the side of caution:

If, racially speaking, whites constitute 42.3% of the total population, then it means that out of the [36,756,666] people inhabiting Cali, [15,548,069] of themare white. And if, racially speaking, blacks constitute 6.7% of the total population, then it means that out of the [36,756,666] people inhabiting Cali,[2,462,696] of them are black (or A.A -- doesn't even matter).

So now, if [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]"70% of African Americans [in California] voted to ban gaymarriage"[/color], then that means that ~ 1,723,887 African American/black people voted to bangay marriage.

Now let's look at the #s for whites. If 49% of whites voted to ban gay marriage--then thatmeans that ~7,618,553 of white people actually voted to ban gay marriage.

That's damn near a 7:1 ratio--which can mean that, for every 1 black person that voted to bangay marriage, 7 white people white people voted to ban gay marriage as well.

Now ask yourself, which "type" of white person would most likely vote for proposition 8. The answer: a Heterosexual--Christian--Male--who is mostlikely--a Conservative.

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]And yet, guess which group is being scapegoated and solely blamed for the passage of proposition 8 andthe ban of gay marriage in California--African Americans. Let's not pay attention to the fact that whites were 7x more likely to vote for proposition 8,and did, than blacks.

[/color]And for those who don't think that blacks/minorities are scapegoats in matter such as this...I leave you with this:

Originally Posted by ShaunHillFTW49

Originally Posted by an dee 51o

In California, 70% of African Americans voted to pass Prop 8 (banning gay marriage). By FAR the highest percentage of any other race. Fact.


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1

Just 2 lousy % to go. Minority vote definitely hurt this in a close vote

Right...the "minority" vote...

...

Don't believe the "media", especially when it is just another tool of coercion.


[color= rgb(0, 255, 0)]Someone feel free to double check my #s.[/color]



...

 

[goinham]

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

just a question. did you read all 9 pages of this thread before you posted that response.

i dont think his main point was that the 70% of black people that voted for Prop 8 was the deciding factor

he was trying to say that minorties dont have any sympathy for gays, which is reinforced by the whole 70% of blacks voted to ban gay marriage...

 

[frostythepoptart]

pigeon picture got the hell out of me. damn near rolling on the floor.

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by HueyP in LouieV

Originally Posted by Nako XL

As a sidenote, I'm not irrational, crazy or stupid...so please stop treating me that way.

I'm also not all-knowing or perfect (far from it) so if you take issue with something I say on here please respectfully speak on it out.

I admit that in the past I came at you kind of hardbody but I calmed that down a while ago.

Going forward, I think wee can disagree without being disagreeable.

We're both too grown and intelligent to be acting juvenile in discussion of serious topics. We might have something to learn (and teach) from each other if we just hear each other out first.



I'm still going to roast you on the joking tip though

agreed

and

at the last 3 pages.

"Pigeonhood"

 

[big j 33]

Damn I missed this one, I randomly clicked on page 7 expecting the usual gay/anti-gay arguments, but sure enough it was completely different

That pigeonhood joke killed me

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by GoinHam

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

just a question. did you read all 9 pages of this thread before you posted that response.

Did I read all 9 pages of the thread--nahhh...and only because I didn't think Ninjahoods "I aint black" discussion with y'all was anything Iwanted to get into or address...

Even if I did read all 9 pages, the fact is, my post was crafted to respond specifically to the "70% of black people..." statement--and nothing more.Why, because that statement is a HUGE MISCONCEPTION and if I remember correctly, that statement was at the heart of a huge thread here on NT when news ofprop.8 being passed was first circulated by the media.

i dont think his main point was that the 70% of black people that voted for Prop 8 was the deciding factor

I think it's very much suggested, at the very least, whether an dee 51o realizes it or not, that "that"statement is specifically crafted and devised in such a way so as to imply that the 70% black vote WAS the deciding factor. That said, realize that an dee 51o is not the first to state that "70% of black people" deal--which is very much proof that it's working as it was intended to. Thisis the only reason I chose to even address it.

he was trying to say that minorties dont have any sympathy for gays, which is reinforced by the whole 70% of blacks voted to ban gay marriage...

The lack of sympathy for gays is not something that is exclusive to minority populations. America--this country as a whole--is very intolerant of homosexuals.And yet, as evidenced by what "he was trying to say", and further implied by the "70% of African American..." statement, we are led tobelieve that only minorities are intolerant. This is what I have a problem with.

Yeah, 70% of blacks IN CALIFORNIA voted to ban gay marriage. That translates roughly to one million, seven hundred and fifty thousand blacks. Meanwhile, seventimes more white people voted to ban gay marriage in America and yet, you wont hear or see the media making statements about this fact. You really have towonder why, don't you think?


...

 

[goinham]

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

Originally Posted by GoinHam

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

just a question. did you read all 9 pages of this thread before you posted that response.

Did I read all 9 pages of the thread--nahhh...and only because I didn't think Ninjahoods "I aint black" discussion with y'all was anything I wanted to get into or address...

Even if I did read all 9 pages, the fact is, my post was crafted to respond specifically to the "70% of black people..." statement--and nothing more. Why, because that statement is a HUGE MISCONCEPTION and if I remember correctly, that statement was at the heart of a huge thread here on NT when news of prop.8 being passed was first circulated by the media.

i dont think his main point was that the 70% of black people that voted for Prop 8 was the deciding factor

I think it's very much suggested, at the very least, whether an dee 51o realizes it or not, that "that" statement is specifically crafted and devised in such a way so as to imply that the 70% black vote WAS the deciding factor. That said, realize that an dee 51o is not the first to state that "70% of black people" deal--which is very much proof that it's working as it was intended to. This is the only reason I chose to even address it.

he was trying to say that minorties dont have any sympathy for gays, which is reinforced by the whole 70% of blacks voted to ban gay marriage...

The lack of sympathy for gays is not something that is exclusive to minority populations. America--this country as a whole--is very intolerant of homosexuals. And yet, as evidenced by what "he was trying to say", and further implied by the "70% of African American..." statement, we are led to believe that only minorities are intolerant. This is what I have a problem with.

Yeah, 70% of blacks IN CALIFORNIA voted to ban gay marriage. That translates roughly to one million, seven hundred and fifty thousand blacks. Meanwhile, seven times more white people voted to ban gay marriage in America and yet, you wont hear or see the media making statements about this fact. You really have to wonder why, don't you think?


...


i see where you're coming from, but you're moreso attacking the people who wrote the article stating that 70% of blacks voted against gay marriage asopposed to what an dee 510 was trying to say.

but even still regardless of how manyt iems it gets defeated gay marriage is goign to become legal in this country eventually, just a matter of time really

 

[dtothed]

surprised it was rejected.
ny is pretty liberal

 

[los yankees]

Gays have been going about this all wrong, I always hated the fact they compare marriage rights to what we went through. There were segregated bathrooms, waterfountains, waiting rooms, schools, and restaurants. Just because the state (which thy have every right to do per 10th Amendment) votes not to recognize themarriage thy want to compare this to civil rights?

I never liked the word "marriage" because I feel it is a religious term, if you did not have religion you do not have "marriage". Thefederal government should not get involved because the Constitution prevents them, as for the states they can do what they want because that's whodistributes marriage licenses. If the people want gay marriage, great, vote on it. If they don't, great, vote on it. Gay marriage supporters do not helpthemselves painting people as bigots just because they have a difference of opinion and comparing what they are going through to what my people went through.Marriage isn't a basic right, it is a right given by the state government hence state licenses. Blacks' basic rights and safety were at stake,homosexuals aren't. If there was such an uproar about heterosexual marriage people of a state could vote to ban heterosexual marriage as well.

By the way, nobody is denying gays from getting married. They can be married by anyone who is licensed to do it, it just wont be recognized by the state.I've heard arguments that "oh what if the spouse gets sick and the significant other cant make a decision or see them if they arent family."Really? What about Power of Attorney?

For the record, I dont care if they get married or not.

 

[DCAllAfrican]

Originally Posted by Nako XL

and as much as people hate the argument, 50 years ago, Black men were thought to be genetically mentally afflicted rapists and murderers. without exception. people shouldn't judge.

new age, attention seeking gay or not, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment applies to all. so why, since its inception, has it been used discriminately?

to use the example of a few, to justify denial of rights to several is an injustice and wrong.

50 years ago? Some still believe this