Why Gay is NOT The New Black

142 comments
January 3, 2012 ‐ By Charing Ball

"charing ball"Recently, the Huffington Post Black Voices section published a provocative piece entitled, “It’s Official: Gay is the New Black.” In it, Writer Monique Ruffin writes about the somewhat tenuous relationship between the gay rights community and the black community, particularly the black church and argues that there are parallels between the fight against racial discrimination and equal rights for the LGBT community under the law. She said, “Gay is the new black, sadly, because many blacks haven’t been willing to embrace their own practices, secrets, fear, and shame about homosexuality. Many blacks have not been able to reconcile their real-life experience with their faith, and until they do this, they are oppressed people who are also practicing the oppression of others.”

While I agree partially with the sentiment of this piece, it does kind of remind me of the scene from The Wiz when Dorothy (played by Diana Ross) and the gang enter the Emerald City to an awaiting spectacle of dancers, who looked like they stepped right out of a 1970s Ebony Magazine’s Fashion Fair spread. The dancers in full regale, boogie around the city to a chorus of “I. Want to Seen. Green. I. Wouldn’t be caught. Dead. Red.” That is until an announcement from the great, powerful and unseen OZ blares over the loud speakers and says, “I thought about it and green is dead and I changed my mind and the color is red.” Then the whole Emerald City suddenly transforms to a dazzling spectacular of red sequin and gardenza as the same dancers two-step around the pavilion, saying, “I wouldn’t be seen green. You got to be dead red…”

In other words, in this presumably “post-racial” era it’s easy for some to assume that racism doesn’t matter as much in comparison to other social issues.  However, despite the rather catchiness of the phrase, gay is not the new black because black is still black.

Of course this isn’t the first time this declaration has been made. As the battle for gay rights issues such as marriage equality have intensified so have the comparisons of the gay rights movement to the Black Civil Rights movement of the 60s. And when Proposition 8 passed in California, gay rights advocates, as well as the mainstream press, were quick to place the blame squarely on the Black community, even as Blacks made up less than 10 percent of total voters. The meme, for whatever reason, caught on, and now the Black community has largely been viewed by the mainstream as homophobic and intolerant.

This is not to suggest that homophobia does not exist in Black community. However I frankly get sick and tired of myself, my friends and my family carrying the weight for something we are not. Perception wise, being gay is no different than being a Republican in the community; some folks may not like it but it damn sure hasn’t stopped Hakeem and his boyfriend, nor Uncle Walt and his “George Bush was a Great Man” political views from coming to the family dinner.

Black folks, like the rest of humanity, are complex beings. This broad brush strokes that we as black folks are more homophobic than the rest of society is a bit deceitful, if not dangerously divisive. Likewise, It’s easy to pick on the black community because it lacks social power and political voice to really fight back than it is to strike out at the real power structures like Congress, State Assemblies and anti-gay, and mostly white, lobbying organizations, and the Church, which are far more influential in deciding who gets married and who doesn’t.

Moreover, I am a little perplexed at how so much attention is given in the press to homophobia in the Black community while ignoring the racial prejudices that have become so normalized in the LGBT and the mainstream community as a whole. While gay advocates and legislatures in New York were likely patting themselves on for their victory in making that state the sixth state to pass a same sex marriage law, there was certainly a deafening silence from many of the same folks about how that state’s biggest city continued its draconian stop-and-frisk practice of rounding up Blacks and Latinos (gay, straight and otherwise) for marijuana arrests.

More from Styleblazer

More from Mommynoire

MadameNoire Video

Comment Disclaimer: Comments that contain profane or derogatory language, video links or exceed 200 words will require approval by a moderator before appearing in the comment section. XOXO-MN
  • MV

    Would the country elect a gay man? Sorry, we’re ahead of them in terms of acceptance and success.

  • Pingback: Gay and Black struggles | Thinking About How To Win

  • BlackLaddieBrett

     DEACON,first of all,most black clergy DID NOT support the civil rights movement,preferring to enrich themselves by begging enough crumbs from the white bigoted massa’s table until Drs. King,Abernathy,Shuttlesworth,et al,FORCED these Quislings to be men and feign support for their own-AND THEIR PEOPLE’S FREEDOM.Second,even were that true,how does that excuse the homophobia for which most black preachers are known?

  • Blackladdiebrett

    Let me see…the LGBT community is racist,blacks are powerless (last I checked the world’s most powerful individual is AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRESIDENT BARACK H. OBAMA !!!!,not to mention the growing black middle-upper-middle and even AFFLUENT CLASSES),and,of course,blacks are UNFAIRLY charged with homophobia.(Oh,yes,we’re “complex people”[though about 99% of blacks listen to {c}rap!!!!})Sounds like another excuse to follow the thieving black mis-leaders who profit from their lemming-like followers!!!!)

  • Black&Gay

    Is this article for real? I’m stunned by some of the poorly researched blather posted on this website as if it is authoritative.

  • Black&Gay

    Is this article for real? I’m stunned by some of the poorly researched blather posted on this website as if it is authoritative.

  • Knightgee

    White gay people are fond of co-opting the black struggle but can’t be bothered to do anything for black LGBT people. Gay is the new black? Last I checked, it’s lgbt people of color who disproportionately suffer rates of homelessness, poverty, and violence while white middle and upper-class gays spend their time attending expensive benefit dinners so they can get married or so they can join the military and participate in American violence against people of color overseas. It’s pretty obvious that even within the LGBT community, black is still black. And it’s always so amusing to see the white gay defense force come out and try to explain to me how hard it is being gay and how similar the struggles are between gay people and black people. Please. I am both gay and black. I know more than those fools about where there is and isn’t overlap and believe me when I say they overstate their case.

  • Abc

    No discrimination is “worse” than any other, for discrimination in any form is wrong. If the mistreatment of gays can’t be compared to the mistreatment of Blacks, then injustices done to Blacks don’t compare to those done to the Jews. But why stop there? Christians have been killed by Muslims, Muslims have been killed by Christians, Buddhists have been killed by Atheists, Native Americans by the Europeans, the North by the South, women by men, children by adults, so on and so forth. Crimes and killings against people by people are always wrong, no matter the degree by which you measure. Blacks are no more entitled to their grievances by the hands of Whites any more than anyone else on this list, and no one has a claim on who has been treated the worst. The fact that this is a crux of the argument shows just how far humanity has to evolve.

    • aria

      I don’t need to feel special by talking about years of suffering I havent personally endured. I don’t want to forget that, it is a part of my history. But you would THINK that the black community or other disenfranchised minorities would understand and try to stop any more discrimination, which we experience in the present, from happening to others. Equal rights can’t be an exclusive club, if one is lacking, all are lacking and no one is free. Constitutional rights aren’t like cookies: if blacks/gays/foreigners/Christians/Agnostics get them doesn’t mean there aren’t any left for me.

    • Reign

       If that’s how you feel then why compare it to anything…especially blacks? If there are so many more treated just as ill as blacks, then why use BLACKS????? Use those other groups. The reason this is the crux of the argument is because this is the crux of the gay article and the claim of “gays”.

      • Phtoito

        Easy there, Reign.  No need to get hysterical.  ;-)  The reason why a comparison is made so often between African-Americans’ struggle for equal rights and gays’ struggle for equal rights is because it is a valid analogy, plain and simple.

        Although many groups have experienced discrimination throughout American history, the struggles of blacks have received the most prominent attention.  Because virtually all Americans are at least passingly familiar with this history, civil rights advocates can just mention the phrase “Separate but Equal” and people can begin to understand why “Civil Unions” are no substitute for real marriage equality. 

        I suppose one could use the struggle of others as well, but if you were to cite, say, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, you’re guaranteed to get a bunch of blank stares in return. 

        Prejudice against blacks was driven in large part by fear and ignorance, justified in large part by religious beliefs.  The same is true for anti-gay bigotry.  Black men in particular were seen as sexual predators unable to control their bestial instincts, and therefore posed a threat to innocent young white maidens everywhere.  Similarly, gays have long been slandered as sexual deviants who prey on children.

        The phrase, “Gay is the new black” is meant to be thought provoking.  It suggests that just as blacks were once despised by large numbers of people, and subjected to systematic discrimination in every sphere of life, only to organize politically to demand their rights as American citizens and human beings, so, too, are gays, as another despised minority group subjected to dehumanizing treatment, organizing to demand that America live up to its founding creed, that all men are created equal. 

        • Reign

          I understand what you are saying PHT. The intent behind the comparison may have been to provoke thought, however it has seemed to simply provoke. If the struggle for gay rights is such the struggle filled with slander and systematic discrimination that people are trying to portray it is, once again, it needs no comparison to anything. Once you begin to compare it to blacks and what they have been through, true comparisons are made in terms of abuse, discrimination, and dehumanization and that is where this “thought-provoking” comparison loses steam. The two are simply incomparable. To add to the problem of this comparison is the racial division it creates not only with in  the gay community but without as well.

          To many african americans, it is offensive for several reasons. The argument isn’t against the struggle gays have or against the discrimination  they suffer. It is against this comparison and the declaration that “it is the new black.” It is playing the race card largely by a group of people who are not of that race. You can not disrespect so many  while asking for respect and support in return.

          • Phtoito

            Well, all I can say is that I am sorry you feel offended by an historical analogy. 

            Unfortunately few people are familiar with the long history of anti-gay discrimination.

            For example, colonial laws gays should be put to death, (a tradition that continues in some countries today) and being gay was essentially a criminal offence in the U.S. until 2003. 

            Gays were categorically banned from all federal jobs and many states and local governments similarly barred them as well.  Governments shared its lists of suspected gays with private employers as well, who then blacklisted these individuals as well, making it nearly impossible to find a job.

            Gay non-U.S. citizens were barred from entering the country based on their supposed “psychopathic personality”. 

            Gay parents were routinely denied child custody and visitation rights because they were presumed to be criminals.

            Gays were denied the right of assembly and association by abusing laws targeting vagrancy and lewd conduct. 

            The U.S. Postal Service aided the FBI in monitoring the communications of known and suspected “sexual deviants” i.e. gays.

            And of course, gays are denied equal marriage rights, something that was not denied to blacks with the extremely rare exception of interracial couples in a number of states.

            Of course all of the previous examples covers primarily  state-sponsored discrimination and leaves out all the numerous examples of discrimination from private individuals.

            Like I said earlier, I’m sorry you feel disrespected by a group of people who look towards the legacy of the movement that freed millions of African Americans from injustice as inspiration to overcome the injustices of today.

            • Reign

               It still and always will PALE in comparison PHT.

              • Phtoito

                How interesting.

                Here you are explicitly downplaying the discrimination faced by gays and yet in an earlier post you wrote, without providing any evidence of course, that “gays are the ones dismissively downplaying the real indignities,
                intimidation and violence that blacks HAVE experienced in the past and
                STILL experience today in various ways on a daily basis.”

                By the way, most people would not so quickly dismiss the severity of being put to death. 

                If one were to do an apples to oranges comparison by evaluating the lives of African Americans in the 1800s and the lives of gays in 2012, then yes, I imagine that few people would take issue with your characterization. 

                Equally absurd, however, is to claim that the level of discrimination against blacks here in the year 2012 compares in any way to the level of discrimination faced by gays. 

                You also wrote that the legacy of slavery continues to have negative repercussions that continued long after emancipation.  I certainly believe this argument has plausibility.  But it strains credulity to suggest that these effects are more pernicious than when a recently widowed gay person loses his house because the state refuses to recognize the validity of his marriage, or someone is fired because her employer is a bigot.

                In any case, the fact that blacks suffered tremendously from discrimination in no way justifies the continuation of discrimination against another group.

                • Reign

                  The fact that another group is dealing with discrimination in no way justifies comparing it to the tremendous suffering experienced by blacks.

                  • Phtoito

                    I wished you had actually responded to my substantive points rather than simply dismissing them with a wave of your hand.

                    In any case, I am unclear as to your position on the real issue.  Forget about any analogy between blacks and gays for the moment. 

                    King famously remarked that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.  To your credit, you have been willing to concede the fact that gays have and continue to suffer from widespread discrimination.

                    Everyone must decide for themselves where they stand, whether that be against discrimination, in support of discrimination, or on the sidelines as a mere spectator.

                    If you stand in the first group, then there is no fundamental disagreement between us.

                    • Reign

                      PHT, I did respond to your comments in the simplest, quickest way to sum up my stance on this topic. It is not my desire to turn this into a long drawn out debate with you but to simply express my views/opinions on this matter as well as hear others. I have no desire to change your mind about the way you see/think/feel about this topic because I’m convinced enough within my beliefs to respectively allow others to have theirs.

                      I believe You are clear about my position on this. My last few responses to you have been simple and precise, without paragraphs of rambling words to distort or distract you or anyone else as to what my feelings are about this comparison.

                      I do not stand for any discrimination however that does not automatically mean I stand in agreement that the struggle of gays “is the new black”. It is against this comparison I stand totally against.

                      As far as whether I stand in the first group, I stand in both groups. I have the privilege and burden of standing in BOTH groups. I am gay. And I am black. And I don’t have to choose which group to stand for  or against because I am both. But IF…IF…. I did have to choose, there is only one group I can “opt”  out of, downplay and/or hide…..and that is gay.

                      I can never opt out of being black.

                      I have enjoyed the exchange with you. Take care.

                    • Phtoito

                      The feeling is mutual.

        • Bestofluck

          Why mention religion? Reign didnt.  That is all you seem to do.  There are those, black, white, etc who oppose gay rights who are not religion.  What is it about you and Christianity?  Figure that out. 

          • Phtoito

            I mention religion because it is an INDISPUTABLE FACT that religious beliefs are the primary motivating factor behind anti-gay animus.  Just listen to the anti-gay rhetoric that is spewed about.

            It is unfortunate that you think I have something against religion in general and Christianity in particular.  There are millions of Christians and other people of faith who stand shoulder to shoulder with their gay brothers and sisters in support of equality.  The United Church of Christ is a leading organization in this regard. 

            • 75thstreet

              I have been reading these comments for days and I have to respond.
              So why are gays to willing to hijack Gay Is The New Black since the black community is so prejudice? The same people they claim give them such grief are the same people they want to identify with. Plain and simple, gays face a lot, no one is denying that. But one thing I must say is that as blacks we never intentionally alienated pockets of people in our struggle. We aimed to unit other races and religious groups behind our struggle. Including the non-religious who majority of us did not identify with at the time.

              • Phtoito

                I think you are painting in awfully broad strokes, my friend.  And I am afraid your insinuation that gays are intentionally alienating others is misplaced, certainly as a generalization.

                Moreover, your claim that “as blacks we never intentionally alienated pockets of people in our struggle” fails to stand up to even cursory historical scrutiny. 

                Have you never heard of Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X, and the Nation of Islam?  I am fairly certain that their message of black supremacy alienated considerable numbers of people. 

        • F3ral Anarchy

          of course civil unions are no substitute for marriage.  civil unions have to do with law and marriage has to do with religion. thats where the issue comes in.  the state issues a certificate of marriage which it shouldnt. it should issue a certificate of legal union. At that point if the couple decides to be wed “in the eyes of their god” they should seek out a church to perform the marriage.

  • Bpear

    Although I am a Christian I support gay rights. It’s unconstitutional to put state and church together in order to determine laws. That was the whole purpose of many when founding america to leave Europe. Religious freedom. A sin is a sin in gods eyes. Donnie mc clurkin is gay & he praises god. I curse and I praise god. What’s the difference? Let god deal with us in his own way.

  • Becquerel

    I feel like some enlightened discussion about this topic gets precluded by amount of religiosity in the black community. As soon as god or religion comes into play its a game of picking sides that gets tangled up in the mess. I just want to talk about how everyone regardless of race or creed deserves to have equal rights without everyone going ‘lordy, lordy’ in my ear and proclaiming how i need to go to church or it ‘just isn’t right’. Please. You sound exactly like the people who continue to hold others down based on stupid differences. As long as we stay divided and rigid, treating people like second class citizens, YOU will continue to set the example for how things will continue.

  • Tyler D

    You’re right when you say Gay is not the new Black. You have your families to help you when you are being discriminated against. Gay’s don’t have that most of the time. My own family has nothing to do with me when I told them I was gay. They pretend I don’t even exist. We do get fired for our sexual orientation. We can get kicked out of a house and be put homeless because of our sexual orientation. 

    • reese

      I feel for you.  Especially if you are a brother because our community can be judgemental about this type of thing.  And if you are rejected from our community where do you go.  I know it must be hard to be black and gay in ghetto and black suburbs.

  • Nehemiah53

    I love you Charing Ball It’s about time a smart brave black journalist show up and stand for what is right and not just go with which every way the wind blows, cause some of these men need to grow some balls. God bless you Charing Ball you are a breath of fresh air

  • robjh1

    Amen! Black is Black! What is even interesting is most of the gay right groups are quick to champion the cause of all races gay but black. Look at California. Gays thought they had this in the bag and didn’t even bother including the gay community, but once they were turned down they woke up and realized they aren’t an island unto themselves.   As for the HuffPost, great blog, but they often miss the beat on social issues related to black. They are more incline to identify what is and what isn’t racism as to the concerns of blacks.

  • Think

    Black is and only is black such as Asian is Asian and Hispanic is Hispanic, etc. You can compare the struggles of any group, but they don’t really out weigh each othe.r Injustice is injustice no matter the shade or orientation of it. People seem so quick to bash people as a group, but fail to realize that people are individuals. I look at people as inviduals.

  • Thom413

    Honey, you’re ill-informed.  “When times get tough we blame Black folks.”   What? Who is this “we” you refer to?  I don’t see Black folks running Bank of America and authorizing foreclosure mill law firms.  I see them being victimized.  As to your assertion that the gay community is all about white upper class males – I’ll grant you that there is a small noisy bunch at GOProud who all the rest of us hold in contempt.  So why don’t we start with the premise that bigotry is WRONG, and that both Black and Gay are immutable characteristics that cannot and should not be changed.  A friend of mine came into work in a beautiful suit – and in tears.  A former acquiantance saw her on the bus and called her “bougie”.  Just as there is no one way to be Black, there is no one way to be Gay.  And hating someone for being either or both of those things comes from THE SAME EXACT PLACE..    Gay IS the new Black.  Too bad you can’t deal with that fact.

    • Nikko

      Thom, gay will never be black, especially when most blacks won’t embrace their own gayness.

      Whites need it to be seen as the “new black” to attempt to put it on the grand stage, to give it the same appearance of suffering and mistreatment blacks suffered.

      People pay attention when you play the race card. Ironic that blacks are being told more and more to stop playing it and their claims are heard being heard less and less. However now a majority of white gays are attempting to play it and it’s not their card to play. There is racial division even amongst the gay community that gays hate to address. Gay is not the new black.

      Gay is “old blue” eyes.  Gay IS old White using blacks once again to profit and further their agenda.

      • Thomas

        Nikko, with all due respect, I think you are filled with baloney.  Every group and every family has members that make the rest of us cringe with embarrassment.  The fact of the matter is that bigotry is always wrong, no matter who is doing it.  When we are talking about civil rights, there is a lot more common ground between blacks and gays than not.  Is the struggle identical?  Of course not.  But the parallels exist, and promoting further division is a reflection of your own insecurities.

        • Nikko

          Thomas…with all due respect. I think you are filled with spam. If the gay struggle is one the level of the struggle of blacks, no one would feel the need to continue making this comparison. The struggle alone could speak for itself without any props.

  • Kayla

    Problem is people make decisions to either disagree or outright persecute because of religious beliefs. But Christianity is the only religion that seems to butt in to gays lives. I have never seen any other religion so fixated on what body parts belong together. I sense a fear that the fight for gay rights will leave alot of blacks overshadowed in a sense, to their rights. The goal of the LGBT community is to not overshadow blacks. But if a person either disagrees or outright persecutes gays just because some book says so then that becomes a problem. And it’s not strange for the previously oppressed to take on characteristics of the oppressor. 

    • Deacon

      Case in point. This comment blatantly disrespects those of the Christian faith. “persecute because of religious beliefs,” “Christianity is the only religion that seems to butt in to gays lives” Absolutely insulting and that is Kayla’s intent.
      My point is that those in the gay community have no problem belittling people and their faith, while fighting for equality – THAT THERE SHOWS NO SIMILARITY BETWEEN THEIR FIGHT AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.

      • Meow

        Deacon, Kayla was saying it like it is.   You seem extremely eager to be a “victim” or be “belittled.”  Many or most gays in the US are Christians.  There is no gay war on Christians, for goodness sake.  On the other hand, there is an organized group of right-wing evangelicals who believe that their personal religion liberty includes gays not being treated equally under the law.  In my opinion, that’s selfish.  Don’t drag Jesus into your own personal beef with gays.  Are you more like the person that Jesus chided for refusing to eat with someone they thought was a sinner, or like Jesus who sat down and dined with that person.  From your posts, I’ve got an idea.  Gosh, evangelicals really love to beat up on gays — maybe it makes them feel better about themselves.

        • Deacon

          So now I refuse to eat with sinners, including gays.  Im a former flight attendant.  I have probably had dinner, hung out, spent hours each day with more gays than you. Never have I refused anyone due to their homosexuality.  And why are you using Jesus to make your point and at the same time question me?

          • Meow

            Deacon, the eating reference was a reference to a biblical verse that I thought you’d identify.   I mention Jesus, Deacon, because your other posts make clear that you oppose gay rights based on your religious beliefs.  As for me, I don’t think in the United States of America that we restrict some people’s rights based on the religious views of others.  I don’t think your personal opposition to gay marriage on bible grounds, for example, should be enshrined in US law.  Live your life according your understanding of biblical principles, and let gays live their lives according to their understanding of biblical principles or whatever other principles they wish to live by.  But you seem to want it both ways — freedom to live your ways, while opposing gays rights to live freely and get married.  That’s what I surmised from your other posts.  Thanks

            • DEACON

              And that’s your belief.  I respect it.  End of.

              • DEACON

                Meaning I respect that that is your view. 

            • Reign

              There are so many biblical beliefs enshrined in US law though, not only the opposition to gay marriage.

              Some parts of the bible are ok to believe but …some parts aren’t?  The bible is “just a book” until we get to the part about Jesus loving, forgiving, saving our sins, but the rest is garbage? That’s the part I try to understand about the argument AGAINST the bible. Many who argue against the bible do so while using parts of it as their argument.

            • OneWingedButterfly

              “Deacon, the eating reference was a reference to a biblical verse that I
              thought you’d identify.   I mention Jesus, Deacon, because your other
              posts make clear that you oppose gay rights based on your religious
              beliefs”

              I don’t see how it relates.

              Gay members want churches to accept/support their sexual orientation. Meaning they want to enter a church as couples and a family. Is this what you REALLY mean when you reference Jesus sitting with sinners? Christian not “really loving” gays as long we continue disapproving your sexual orientation? We aren’t truly “loving” because we aren’t choosing your sexual orientation over the bible teachings? or *choosing your INTERPRETATION* of the bible? We love you we hate your sin…as we should be hating our own individual sins. :)

          • OneWingedButterfly

            “ISo now I refuse to eat with sinners, including gays.”

            it’s interesting how some gays tend to twist things around when debating with Christians who disapprove of their sexual orientation and still treat them as Jesus wants them to be treated. Until such Christian SUPPORT their sexual orientation these gays will come up with outlandish accusations to place guilt on these Christian. Respect goes BOTH ways. I’m a Christian and I love you, and I don’t go out of my way to keep rights away from you but you best to make sure to respect my rights. Let’s face it, the gay communities main agenda is to normalize homosexuality in every aspect in the society including the churches. Jesus sat with the prostitutes, gays, tax collectors all the while teaching them that their ways were sinful. He told Mary Magdenline after he saved her from being stoned to death to SIN NO MORE. How convenient some of you gays are to twist and turn the bible as do the right wing Christians. The Devil is always a liar.

            • OneWingedButterfly

              Also show us where Deacon said he/she wouldn’t eat with sinners?

              Putting words in people mouths….more like manipulating and trying to lay guilt on Christians like Deacon (and myself since I do believe in treating others exactly as Jesus expects while disapproving their sins.)

              Basically you guys have issue with this expression, “love the sinner hate the sin.” This isn’t good enough for gays anymore. So let’s not front.

              • WITNESS

                I can guarantee you that many of the commentors who are questioning and targeting  our beliefs are the same people who deal day in and day out (break bread) with Christians who love and respect them while at the same time disagreeing with their views.  Then they come on this site in attempts to use the bible to question the love we have for them. 

        • Reign

          I don’t understand. If there are gays who are Christians, how do you ignore the part in the bible that speaks against homosexuality and hold it against other Christians who stand behind it? I have still yet to understand gays who say, “my sin is no different, no greater than any other sin” but do not understand the implications behind what they are saying. While gays admit they are sinning and are chastising the church for trying to make their sin different from other sins, they are actually seeking to make their sin “different” from others sins by asking for permission to continue practicing it and even for churches to sanction it. I don’t understand that. And you’re right, Jesus did often eat with sinners…WHILE…he taught them the Word.

          • Meow

            Not everybody who reads the Bible believes homosexuality is a sin.  Jesus said NOTHING about homosexuality (so, while sitting and eating, he said nothing about it, at least in the Bible).  The most-cited verse on homosexuality (“abomination”) is from Leviticus, which contains bans on wearing mixed fabrics, eating seafood and other levitical rules that are no longer applicable after Christ’s death.  Of course, no Christian cites any other verse Leviticus in any circumstance ever, except to pull out a verse without context condemn gays.  That leaves condemners with a single sentence from Romans 1 and a verse in 1 Corinthians that you could read lots of ways.  Those verses condemn practices of the day, including pederasty and rape.  Many legitimate, Bible-believing Christians believe that loving, monogamous, same-sex relationships are consistent with the Bible.  No matter what you believe, it’s unthinkable that an issue that Jesus said 0 words about should be such a fixation of Christians today. 

            • guest

              read romans chp 1 verse 25 down

              • Taahira Mcgee

                Thank you effeminate means gay just in case you didnt know

            • Reign

              So only the parts in the “red”, the parts where Jesus spoke are true? They were also written by man. They weren’t written by Jesus himself. What makes those parts in the bible any truer than the rest??? Because it starts off with ” And Jesus said…”?

              I’m not a religious fanatic but I’m not so gay I’m ready to jump on the gay bandwagon either. I can’t wrap my mind around how some of the bible is true (the parts about Jesus loving and forgiving us all) but the rest is “just a book”.

              The entire book is written by men. As a matter of fact, ALL books are written by men, including the ones used to discredit and invalidate the bible.

            • Love1

              Read 1 Timothy 1:9-11 (New Testament).

              But what’s amazing is how non Christians or others like you will accuse Christians of picking what they want from the bible when you just did the same thing.  Also, you must know that Protestant hold fast to the New Testament, all of it, not just what Jesus said.  We understand that God gave us this Great Book, not just certain parts. The homosexual community doesnt have any right to tell Christians how to practice their faith. Take care.

            • reese

              And single out gays.  There is no dispute to what the bible says about adultry, stealing, lying……………….But they are accepted with open arms in communities.

              • WITNESS

                So in your family are you allowed to commit adultry, steal, and lie?  I know in my family that we are not.  None of these things are acceptable.  I have a male cousin who has 2 kids with 2 different mistresses.  My family is pissed. It is not accepted. We have a drug addict who we had ban from family gathering due to theft and other issues.  She is now back at home drug free.  But we didnt accept her stealing from us.  Also, no one accepts lying. As kids we received many behind whooping for lying. I also have a step brother who is gay.  Very flamboyant.  Do we ban him although as Christians we dont agree with his lifestyle?  No.  He is more than welcome in our homes with his boyfriend(s). Yes.  Do I argue with him about his homosexuality?  No.  Do I look down on him? No. Do I believe he is a sinner?  Yes.  Just like me.  We both grew up going to church together.  His mother, my step mother, was a zealous church goer who find out he was gay before she died.  Did she bannish him? No.  Did she accept his sexual lifestyle? No.  She told me she didnt like it, but he was her son.  She loved him.  But my step mother wasnt going to change her beliefs b/c of her son’s homosexuality.  And he didnt expect her to so.  There is no way on Earth Im going to change my Christian believes for anyone.  And the fact that gays expect others to do so unacceptable.  I love my step brother.  Am I going to fight his fight?  No because I dont accept homosexuality as being correct per my religion.  Do I expect him to agree?   I wish he did, but moreso, we accept that we have different views and we keep it moving.  Does it cause him grief?  I dont know.  We’ve never discussed that.  But my religion is more important than his grief.  I would never want us to end our relationship.  If is ever happened it would be his choice not mine.  

            • OneWingedButterfly

              “Not everybody who reads the Bible believes homosexuality is a sin”

              Exactly…so why are some gays folks trying to force their interpretation on Christians who believes that the bible speaks against it???? This is a no win situation apparently. I”m not interested in turning you into hetersexual, you were born gay–that’s your cross to bare. We live in a FALLEN world where we must deal with famine, diseases, war, and death….it’s an IMPERFECT world… some folks were BORN blind, mute or deaf…did God make them this way????

              You ask me if I believe it’s a sin, I will tell you yes. Will I get in your way from your rights? No I will not. You know why? (Because of our God given right..FREEWILL. You can choose to lead his way or YOUR way…Our Creator wants us to CHOOSE…) Respect my rights.

              Neither rights trumps the other.

              This is why I am for the separation of church and state..the main reason is to PROTECT the church. And yes I am for churches and other religion entity to pay taxes so that it remain loyal to God’s ways and not the ways of the world. This will also serve to WEED out the priests, pastors dressed in sheep clothing who are really in it to run churches as businesses.

              You said Jesus didn’t say anything about gays…Jesus didn’t say a whole lot of things about other sinners as well. And you are entitled to INTERPRET that as you deem fit.I interpret the passage down below as a confirmation that marriage is between a man and a woman.

              “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the
              beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a ****husband and wife,******** it is better not to marry.Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have ***renounced marriage***** because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it. (NIV)”

              eunuchs : A eunuch is a castrated man. (noun)

              In other words, there is a physical defect..can’t get it up, can’t perform. So they were either born with a defect or it was CUT off by others…and this here, “and others have ***renounced marriage***** because of the kingdom of heaven. ” Is like an eunuch..like a**monk**…choosing to relinquish this need in order to give themselves up to and for God, and to worship Him.

              Bottom line is that it is pretty clear that marriage as stated by Jesus is between a HUSBAND and a WIFE. Not husband and husband or wife and wife.

              Guess what..this here is in the New Testament. Old laws were fulfilled by Jesus… Christians no longer have to stone people to death. Marriage is between a man and a woman STILL.

              Bye!

            • Balanced Commentator

              First of all, regarding the comparisons which have been made about alleged or apparent similarities in the fight for gay equality with the fight against deeply ingrained racism that the black community has been though. I think it’s important to note that, although both represent destructive forms of discrimination, there are several reasons why such comparisons should be discussed with extreme sensitivity. Making such comparisons in an attempt to promote the rights of gay people may be unwise for several reasons, as described below.

              Rather than providing the necessary logical debate which is required to support developments in gay rights policy, the main outcome of such comparisons could be to irritate whatever proportion of black people feel that such comparisons are inappropriate. I have known people to take offense to this comparison, not only because sexuality and ethnicity are entirely different entities, with a different history of discrimination; but equally because many black people may not wish to support gay rights themselves.

              The outcome is that nothing is achieved in improving the general population’s understanding of what ‘the average’ gay person actually wants or expects as far as legal rights are concerned. The creation of anger can only fuel prejudice.

              Although discrimination is discrimination, I think it’s vital for as many gay people as possible, to support all reasonable rights for equality (or tolerance) by explaining and demonstrating the merit and logic behind their beliefs, not by making references to the improved rights that black people have accomplished as if this were the same issue. Concerns that gay marriage will erode the security and significance of marriage for straight couples are especially easy to counteract. I have never heard any plausible reason why this would happen. For any couple, regardless of their sexuality, a long-term relationship is essentially what you make of it, usually requiring effort from both sides to get through difficult times. Many straight couples now choose not to get married so young these days, preferring to wait until things are settled both at work and at home. So, if anyone can provide a decent reason why the legality of gay marriage will mysteriously weaken their own marriage (which should be a special bond, for better or worse), do let me know……

              As for the arguments that gay marriage will ‘weaken the family’, I don’t even know what this is supposed to mean.

              Presumably, in societies with adequate standards of sex education, young people will understand the basic fact that by the end of puberty, but usually much earlier, the majority of people have started to feel physical attraction to certain people of the opposite sex (at least predominantly so), and will go on to form heterosexual relationships.

              Adequate sex education will also teach young people that a smaller proportion of the population consistently feel much more physically attracted to people of their own sex. If these feelings are present at the end of puberty, and not just briefly during childhood, the young person may realise that they are probably gay (hopefully with minimal pressure or discrimination). Looking back, I remember definite same sex attraction from the age of 6, which has continued every since. Sex education at primary school was very hit and miss. As a result, I experienced some anxiety and confusion as a teenager about why I wasn’t interested in girls. It would have been helpful to have some basic explanations earlier, rather than just looking at stylised diagrams of the male and female genitalia. Finally, I learnt what the word gay actually meant (not sure who from) and realised that it applied to me. With no talk of long-term civil partnerships, or anything similar back then, the future looked bleak. Anyone wanting to be critical of gay men’s tendency for casual hook-ups would do well to be reminded that until not too long ago this was one of the few available options. Far from destroying families, the creation of legal unions between two same-sex partners should actually improve social stability. Adoption is a separate issue. But in all cases, the authorities carefully vet the potential parent or parents for suitability.

              Amongst teenagers and young adults, better education should lead to fewer men who mistakenly get married based on the hope that they will start to find women attractive at some point in the future. This still seems to be fairly common, I know a number of gay men who were married for several years become they finally accepted to themselves that they were only attracted to men. Sadly, the breakdown of these marriages which probably should never haven happened in the first place was very traumatic. The reverse seems to happen with gay women slightly later, perhaps because women’s sexually is of a a different nature to, and may be more complex and ‘fluid’ than it is in men. It’s my observation than women tend to come out as gay at a later age than men, and the number of women who identify as exclusively gay seems to be lower than men.

              I am gay 30-something, a ‘normal’ guy. Apart from my innate attraction to men, which has been present for as long as I can remember, I’m really no different to most so-called straight men out there. I’m not personally a campaigner for anything. Just hoping life will turn out OK for me. Gay people are not a discreet ‘community’ any more than straight people are a ‘community’. We come in all shapes and sizes, with widely varying interests, political views, moral beliefs and all the rest. The fact that we share a same-sex attraction does not necessarily change the rest of our thoughts or behaviour in any other way. Sexuality is just one part of a person’s complex psyche. Some gay’s feel proud and militant, some fall into every possible gay stereotype one could think of. Some are entirely undetectable as gay, and remain ‘out’ only to their closest friends or family. Some gays are promiscuous. Others rarely have any sexual contact at all. There are as many types of gay people as there are straight people.

              The majority, I believe, are fairly unremarkable people with no strong agenda except perhaps to live a useful, productive life while making things as happy and fulfilling as possible for themselves, their friends and their family. For those in a long-term relationship, any laws preventing the formation of an official/civil legally recognised arrangement cam be a major problem. Whether it’s referred to as ‘marriage’ or ‘civil union’ is hardly the most important issue to the couple.

              The lack of ability to form any such legal arrangement in some places is the real problem for committed gay couples. Have no legal rights can mean anything from being refused the right to visit your partner in hospital if their family objected… to being unable to stay in your shared home in the event of your partner’s death due to the imposition of huge inheritance taxes. These are a just a few of the basic rights which married couples and civil partners can expect. Some gay campaigners have put great emphasis on the right be be legally married rather than being in a civil partnership which essentially provides the same rights. At the moment, I think this pressure may be slightly misguided. Although marriage as a societal contract almost certainly pre-dates all modern religions, the term ‘marriage’ is so deeply believed to be of religious significance by (some, I have no idea what proportion) of people that the concept of same-sex ‘marriage’ is difficult to comprehend. Civil partnership, a entirely legal arrangement with no religious associations may be much easier for many Christians to understand. The most militant gays claim it’s not equality until the same term is used, but I personally think acceptance tends to come more slowly and naturally for anyone who feels uncomfortable with the concept. Finally, if such people meet gay civil partners as neighbours and friends, and get to know them better, they might be more happy with caling it marriage……. but maybe not, and I think this issue of terminology has received so much attention that it’s actually caused an increase in anti-gay sentiment for some. Even I, as a gay person who has previously (but sadly not currently) had a successful and loving relationship, the concept of getting married sounds almost alien because the idea of marriage being between a man and a woman is so deeply ingrained by society and the media. I actually find the idea of a civil partnership much more attractive. As a non-religious man, if I was lucky enough to be at the point in a relationship where we’d decided to form a legal union, it would naturally occur in the secular environment of a register office, and in the presence of suits rather than a classic white dress or any of the obligatory bride maids etc, it would seem almost bizarre to call it a marriage even though it would be of identical importance to my life. Perhaps that’s just me….. the inevitable result of watching so many posh weddings on TV. No self-hatred involved I promise.

              Personally, although I’m not at all religious I do accept the rights of others to practice their religion and act according to their beliefs. If a Christian was to say to me, in an appropriate social environment that ‘I believe that being gay is wrong’, I would try my best to avoid feeling hurt, angry or offended because I strongly believe that Christians are just as entitled to their beliefs as I am. Gay people who constantly bad mouth Christianity do us no favours. Any group wishing to be accepted or at the very least tolerated should be willing to appreciate that not everyone will agree with what they’re doing, and so other people’s differing views will need to be tolerated.

              It’s rarely a desirable instrument of change when an organisation or government essentially forces people to sign up to accept any form of controversial agenda, the result can be anger, refusal to change behaviour…. or as often happens in the UK, lip service is paid to acceptance while many share entirely different views behind closed doors. It’s a very fine line though, which makes legislation complex. While I would be willing to accept someone’s view that ‘being gay in wrong’, based on their religious beliefs or any other reasons, it would only be OK for them to inform me of their views in a non-threatening non-aggressive manner and generally not in the workplace. An excess of anti-gay views in the workplace would often amount to bullying, unless it was clearly being done in a non-offensive humorous style.

              I do not believe that any form of bullying or harrasment against gay people based solely on their sexual preference should ever be legally acceptable in any developed country. It would be great if this was the case in all countries but this is impossible in the present time. As much as religious beliefs will affect the views of many voting politicians. I strongly feel the importance of governments either remaining, or alternatively becoming sufficiently secular that they can effectively promote the rights and values of non-believers while maintaining respect for the beliefs and rights of Christians and other religious group. Equally, there should be no concerns that protection
              against minority groups will be taken too far ie. priests who disagree being forced to marry gay couples. So far in the UK, there’s little reason to think this will become a problem.

              In no developed country should the likes of Leviticus be presented during arguments against allowing basic rights for gay citizens. Leveticus, the third book of the Hebrew Bible, appears to be have been written and rewritten over a period of centuries. As far as we can tell, it mainly represents the views of the Jewish Priest’s of the time, mainly regarding purity, cleanliness and law. Even the strictest Christian’s would often accept that the majority of the book is entirely irrelevant to modern society, but still conveniently take note of its anti-homosexual sentiments – truly an excellent example of hypocrisy! I appreciate that there are a small number of other possibly anti-gay statements at various points in the Bible but considering that the four Gospels, which represent the backbone of the Bible to most Christians as the word of Jesus, apparently make no mention of the matter…. I don’t quite see why some Christian group express such vehement hatred of gay people, the act, or whatever. It’s almost as if the most extreme Churches view gay people as some kind of scape-goat for everything that’s going wrong in the world. Madness. At the other end of the spectrum, there are many gay Christians, who aim to follow the example of Jesus in the Gospels, while paying little or no attention to much of the vitriol which can be found in the Old Testament.

              In the UK, for example, we have a huge secular popular, a large number of Christians by name only, a large but dwindling population of practicing Christians, quite a large concentration of Muslims in some areas, and additional groups of Jews, Sikhs and Hindus. My point is, we are a Christian country in name only, and our system of government should be as fair as possible to all groups. And in recent years, it has improved the rights for gay couples a great deal. I hope to see the same happen elsewhere. Some parts of Europe we well ahead of the UK but we made it.

              What makes me most angry is in cases where religious beliefs either result in bullying/harrassment of gay people (with no protection), or influence government policy to such an extent that there is continual refusal to grant even basic rights and protection to an entire group of law-abiding citizens in their country/state who happen to be attracted to the same sex. This is the case in so many countries around the world, and in the worst, anti-gay murders and unprovoked vicious beating is still taking place. This has to change. Surely, no sound-minded person, whether religious or otherwise, can condone these actions. Sadly, lack of legal protection for gay people has led to the emergence of organised gay-bashing groups. In Russia for example, these groups have even been televised and show no remorse. No doubt the same happens elsewhere.

              These ‘terror’ groups operate as a number of evidently sadistic/sick members who enjoy terrorising and beating gay people, apparently for fun, but officially in the name of purifying the country of evil, or some similar but equally nonsensical rationalisation. Group members usually pose online as gay men looking to meet someone, either for a dates or perhaps sex, it doesn’t matter. They will offer whatever the person they’re chatting to appears to want in order to lure them to a particular location, normally inside someone’s house, so as to appear less suspicious. The lucky ones realise early that their date is not going as expected, and on recognising that something is wrong, make a rapid escape. The rest don’t find out until it’s too late, after arriving at the house where the the group are waiting, they will (despite having done nothing wrong or illegal), be terribly beaten, often forced face-down into the bath to the point of near drowning, urinated on and abused in so many ways by an entire group of adult men (and sometimes women), while they are alone, totally helpless and unsure whether they will even escape alive. Often, recordings will be made of the victim, often semi-naked and reciting a message instructed by the abusers) – this is then posted online and often to the victim’s employer. Due to the anti-gay environment in Russian, they may then lose then job, their dignity and suffer the profound lasting effects of terrifying physical and verbal abuse. I watched a TV program about one of these gangs not long ago and it was the most harrowing documentary I’ve seen in quite some time. No one appeared to be offering any protection, support for the victims, or even dealing with the offenders, some of whom will be clearly know to the police through their widely published videos.

              Fortunately, gay people are much safer in most Western Countries than in Russia. The situation in certain developing countries, and countries abiding to strict Shariah law, is also extreme. In Iran, for example, consensual sex between two men carries the dealth penalty. The same applies across much of Africa and the Middle East.

              We are pretty fortunate in most parts of Europe. The situation in America seem to be more of a mixed bag. I expect it will improve eventually but it will often be a slow process, as it always is when people have already made up their mind, usually based on….. well, certainly not the full story.

      • Kayla

        The christians are the majority in their country. and have been for a very long time. Gays aren’t out to undermine your religion, but how can a gay person honestly respect a religion that says they will burn in hell for being themselves. And then to say someone is wrong simply because a book says so. What other religion openly does this to the gay community here in america? It’s ok I’ll wait

        • DEACON

          You dont respect my religion and you consider it at SIMPLE book.  Because of that of disrespect towards my belliefs I wont reply to your questions. 

    • reese

      No, it might seem that way but it isn’t.  Go to the muslem countries in Middle east and Africa where gays are killed or arrested.  But I think they are both wrong.  What happen to don’t judge or let he who is without sin throw the first stone.  Also I think Christans and other religions as well think they have the right to try to force there views on other people. 

  • Love and equality for ALL

    It was wrong when blacks were kept out of the military because whites were uncomfortable around them.  It was wrong when (until this year) gays were kept out of the military because straights were uncomfortable around them.  It was wrong when the government did not let blacks marry whites because some citizens believed that was unbiblical.  It is wrong that the government in most state does not let gays marry because some citizens believe it is unbiblical.  Even while honoring the very important history of suffering that only blacks have had in this country, it is just impossible not to acknowledge that the hate and discrimination against gays has the same source as the hate and discrimination against blacks.  It should tell you something that the states leading the charge for gay equality are Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, etc. and that the states opposing gays most harshly are South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, etc.  What shocks me is that, in spite of the obvious parallels, many blacks will stand shoulder to shoulder against gays with the VERY PEOPLE THAT HATE(D) them not long ago, citing practically the same tired Biblical passages to justify why it’s OK to deprive them of equal treatment.  The right to equality is something we are all entitled to, whether we’re black, gay, or latina.  There is no “competition” for rights, and I would expect a group that has suffered inequality to stand shoulder to shoulder with the victims of discrimination, not with those dispensing it.  And to the author who so breezily says that being gay in the U.S. is like “being a Republican,” are you kidding me?  Do Republican kids kills themselves because they’re sick to death of coming out to their families?  Are Republicans the victims of 18% of violent hate crimes like gays?  Are Republicans told they’re sinful abominations?  Do Republicans have their binational spouses deported because their marriages aren’t recognized under US immigration laws?  Are Republicans forbidden from visiting their sick loved ones in the hospital because their relationships aren’t recognized?  Do Republicans get kicked out of their homes and churches like gays?  Is there a bullying crisis against Republican children?  Is there a Jamaican rap culture that advocates killing Republicans?  Have any Republicans been called “phaggot”, like another commenter on this board was for saying something pro-gay?  No, the answer is no.  And the answer to all the people who say they “love” gays but oppose all those laws that make their lives equal and bearable — that’s not love.  There’s no love in telling someone, in Jesus’s name, that they can cry in the waiting room of a hospital while their gay partner is being treated because their relationship isn’t recognized.

    • Reign

      . No one can deny the mistreatment or fight for equal rights by gays, but it is not comparable to the discrimination, the struggle and treatment of blacks.  It is nowhere near it. Being gay and being black are 2 different things, two different struggles. As a matter of fact, being black while gay further complicates the struggle in a way whites will never understand

      • Love and Equality for All

        I agree with you Reign.  They are different in many ways, but there are some similarities in terms of discrimination.  Enough similarities for people to draw comparisons — for example, when facing someone who opposes the government allowing gay marriage for religious reasons, how can one not draw an analogy to antimiscegenation laws and Loving v. Virginia?  Blacks have a much deeper, longer haul than gays do in righting the wrongs against them.  I hope blacks and gays can support and advance one another’s equality….that would be a good outcome. 

        • Reign

          There are similarities in the fact that there is discrimination. However the levels and the degree to which that discrimination is expressed is incomparable. Entire families of blacks were wiped out. No one is wiping out the entire families of gay people. To equate or draw upon the struggles of blacks is somewhat disrespectful. Why not call the struggle of gays “the new holocaust?” The holocaust is another example of discrimination since discrimination seems to be the “sticking point” of the fight for this comparison. Why not call it “the new jew”?

          Blacks have supported in this cause. However just the words alone “gay is the new black” is somewhat offensive to some, especially when so many STILL can’t get over the color of my skin being black. Being black hasn’t gotten old yet.

          • Love and Equality for All

            Hey Reign, I actually don’t think I disagree with you on anything.  I suspect whoever wrote “Gay is the New Black” was doing a light-hearted play on words, not trying to say the discrimination against gays is comparable to slavery.  Although your Holocaust reference is somewhat ironic — gays were in fact rounded up by the Nazis, sent to concentration camps, forced to wear the pink triangle (instead of the gold star) and executed, and the National Holocaust Museum has an exhibit on this.   But, all that said, I think blacks will suffer long after gays have achieved equality.  I think gays have a unique advantage in that a gay can be born into any family — rich, poor, black, white, powerless, or influential, and there will be enough touchpoints across all of society that will eliminate it being acceptable to mistreat them.  Blacks do not have this advantage and will continue to have people who won’t see past skin color.  I wish I knew an answer.  I saw a dinner where black Gov. Deval Patrick enouraged a room of gay rights activities to get involved in issues of race equality to raucous applause, so maybe the future holds better things for both groups. 

      • jack sprat

        In fairness, nor will most straight blacks understand it. Think of it as a more consequential parallel to the situation faced by many biracial children. Neither fish nor fowl, except when among the beasts of the field. (Which is why some gay AA felt so liberated while living in places like London or Paris. There might well have been the occasional indignity, but it hadn’t the bitter flavor of rejection.)

    • reese

      I agree with everything you said except marriage.  I think it is between one man and one woman.  Or if you let two men or women marry why not allow bigomy.  If it is just everyone’s choice.  But maybe they should just allow that anyone who wants to get married who is a consenting adult can do it. 

      • jack sprat

        That’s closer to the bone than anyone else has come on this thread.

        What’s at issue is the very definition of ‘secular marriage’, NOT equality under the law. The courts, for a change, have actually gotten it more or less right. With one or two exceptions, which relied on the language of a particular State’s Constitution, both State and Federal courts have so far left the matter where it properly belongs, to the People. As is customary and usual in such matters, the arenas in which to contest such weighty differences of conscience are the various Legislatures.

        The repeated impulse of activist courts lies at the root of the current political divide, with all its many incivilities. The Progressive wont has been to ride roughshod over those rights which are reserved to the People, as, for a long time, the political class itself was not divided in any great way by such issues.

        The People themselves, however, upwards of a hundred million of them, were thereby severed from any visceral connection to their own governments. Thus, in time, there arose those who would exploit their growing sense of alienation and disenfranchisement.

        The Tea Party is the bastard child of the Progressive.

    • jack sprat

      Gays ARE allowed to marry, in every State in the Union. The disagreement is over what the definition of secular marriage should be, which is a distinction with a difference.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MPMTTYSLP5KTVO25AGKMJFATGI Well…

    Amen, amen, amen.

  • Gizmo

    I appreciate this perspective.  It is always easy to use black people to promote agendas.  Feminists have also used this tactic that some in pro-gay rights individuals have used.

  • Xaiver

    I
    Get Sooo sick and tired of these different movements who try to
    compare their plight to the Civil Rights Movement.. First Homosexuals
    now Occupy.. STOP!! You don’t’ have the History (300 years) of Pain and
    Struggle and being RIPPED from your homeland and Loss of Family Names
    to be able to claim you struggle is like the Civil Rights Movement..

    • Phtoito

      Oh please.  Stop pretending like you personally were ripped away from your homeland and enslaved.  Stop pretending like you could be fired from your job or kicked out of your home because someone found out you were attracted to persons of the opposite sex.  Stop pretending that you’re demonized on a daily basis by people who hold themselves out as political and religious “leaders”. 

      The system of legal discrimination that brought untold hardship and indignities upon African-Americans was dismantled many decades ago.  Blatant anti-black discrimination no longer exists and its subtler, more insidious variations can and are challenged in court.  That’s the crucial difference.  Discrimination against blacks is socially, politically and legally unacceptable.  When gays are discriminated against, there is often no legal recourse.

      • Tyler D

        I have been fired for being gay. I was told “It’s against God’s law and I will not have it in my store.” And I couldn’t sue because it was legal for them to do that. And I am constantly told that I am burning in hell for my lifestyle “choice”. So how am I pretending?

        • Phtoito

          Hi Tyler! 

          Please allow me to clarify my post as I believe you may have misunderstood it. 

          My point, directed at Xaiver, is simply this:  Just because the particular details of historic anti-black discrimination are not identical to the discrimination faced by gays, (both past and ongoing), it doesn’t make a comparison between the 20th century struggle of African Americans to achieve equality under the law and the efforts of gay Americans to achieve the same goal invalid. 

          In fact, an argument could be made that those who go so far as to essentially imply that gays are “highjacking” THEIR civil rights movement, despite the substantial parallels, are in fact dismissively downplaying the very real indignities, intimidation and violence that gays experience on a daily basis.

          • Reign

            In fact PHT, gays are the ones dismissively downplaying the real indignities, intimidation and violence that blacks HAVE experienced in the past and STILL experience today in various ways on a daily basis. Gays are trying to equate their struggle to the struggle of blacks to give it greater merit. While they seek to make their struggle appear greater, it is done at the expense of blacks by lessening theirs. 

            It doesn’t matter that not one black posting on here has suffered the degradation of being ripped from their home or lynchings. Their ancestors have and blacks today still suffer from the consequences of it.

        • reese

          you need to talk to somebody.  We have gay teachers and even obvious drag queens who are teaching at schools.  You should be protected unless you signed some kind of moral closs.  At my job we have them and they fire people who were drunk and acting up.  Or dating a married person and so on.

      • reese

        What are you talking about? There are more discrimination cases now than in years.  And homosexuals are protected by discrimination laws.  The law says that you cannot discriminate on base of age, race, sex, sexual origination(gay) and religion.

        • Phtoito

          Just a moment Reese, I’m a bit confused.  Surely no reasonable person can argue that discrimination against blacks is more prevalent today than in the 1950s.

          And on the contrary, gays are NOT protected from discrimination under federal law; and only a handful of states ban anti-gay discrimination and even then such protection is limited to certain areas such as employment. 

          The vast majority of states plus the federal government actually REQUIRE discrimination against gays via constitutional provisions or legislative statutes.

          Unless Tyler is fortunate enough to live in one of the states that prohibit employment discrimination, he has no legal recourse.

          • WITNESS

            REQUIRE discrimination.  Can you explain?  Sounds like they REQUIRE others to discriminate…

            • Phtoito

              Well, the most obvious example are the so-called “Defence of Marriage” Acts, at the federal and state levels which require federal and state officials to pretend that the legally valid marriages of gay couples don’t exist and force state officials to turn away gay couples who wish to marry.

              Also, some institutions such as public universities that wish to offer benefits to gay couples in order to remain attractive to potential faculty can be prohibited from doing so.

              Let’s not forget the belatedly repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

      • jack sprat

        Kicked out of WHOSE home?! I’m pretty sure that you mean kicked out of your parents’ home, or the homes of some private other. Such are the vicissitudes of life. You’re not the only ones in this world who possess rights.

  • F3ral Anarchy

    of course gay is not the new black.  if you are homosexual you simply need not state it and life goes on.  blacks cant just go around and change their skin color

    • Adoantarel

      Blacks could wear full body makeup if they wanted to pass for white, but such an idea is ludicrious. No one should have to hide, whether its easy or not to do so. That you think someone should have to hide themselves for your comfort shows how selfish you are.

      • brian k

        Whilst I get what you are alluding to, it was a stupid analogy.  One cannot hide your blackness in the same way that one can hide their sexual preference.  Also I guess a lot of black people get annoyed with every movement being compared to the civil rights struggle and what came before.  Are gay people being lynched and the authorities turning a blind eye?  Are there segregated inferior schools for gay kids that are being bombed and attacked? Are pro-gay marches being shot at by cops and are they being attacked by rapid dogs? Are gay men being tested on and infected with syphilis?  Were gay men flogged, tarred, feathered and set alight?  Are gay women being raped by their ‘owners’ with no hope for justice?  Are gay people being transported in ships where most of them die due to being contained in the hold as cargo in stacks with chains around their hands and legs. 

        By all means seek the right to marry or adopt but do not compare it to the plight of blacks in America throughout history.

        • brian k

          *rabid dogs

          • jack sprat

            Yeah, I caught that at first reading. It makes for an interesting mental image: “rapid dogs”; n. (phrase) Guys who are all rap and not a minute longer.

        • Klad84

          Look, although horrors are and have been committed against gays, I don’t think anyone is saying gays have suffered the same history as blacks in America.  I think the point is that the very real discrimination against gays has some important and undeniable parallels to the 20th century discrimination against blacks.  And the discrimination needs to be rectified.  This baloney about gays being able to hide their gayness is ridiculous — gays are bashed all the time because straights perceive they’re gay.  Some gays can “pass” as straight, but many or most cannot – whether because of their voice, or mannerisms, or physical appearance or some combo.  And, more importantly, they shouldn’t have to lie or use vague pronouns to hide their fact they’re gay.  And Brian, just for history’s sake, gays have been chemically castrated and subject to shock therapy in the United States.  They were rounded up by Nazis and forced to wear pink triangles and, yes, attacked and eaten alive by German shepherds.  They were ineligible for immigration in the US because they were considered “psychopathic.”  Homosexuality was listed as a medical disorder until the 70s.  When AIDS happened, mainstream politicians said it was God’s punishment for their being gay and that it was just.  Gays have not been enslaved.  But more importantly, none of this matters — even the slightest discrimination is unacceptable.  The Black community and gay community should join hands and lift each other up and stand firm against mistreatment.  And when someone else comes around who has faced mistreatment, extend a hand and bring them in the circle of protection and love.

          • brian k

            Gay people have been discriminated against, but I cannot stomach such comparisons because it appears to undermine the horrors of the black experience in America for centuries.  I was commenting on America only; I understand gay people were persecuted in the holocaust but if we then move outside this country and look at black history in south America, the Caribbean and Africa then we will be here all day. 

            Also, I am aware of the fact that the gay community itself is not necessarily the most welcoming to black people.  The fact they are gay does not mean they are any less racist to blacks.  So it comes across as condescending when such comparisons are made for a wholly political purpose.

            • Tyler D

              Blacks can be just as racist as whites. White people have to be careful what they say or do because they might get called racist. And the gay community not being the most welcome to blacks? Well that happens when they are not welcoming to gays. 

              • jack sprat

                That last point is silly. It isn’t the behavior of the gay community towards blacks, in general, which was being discussed, but its mistreatment of BLACK GAYS. As if the principal victims of (both literal and physical) gay bashing by AA weren’t those same black gays.

                I’m pretty sure that this isn’t the sort of DP for which many of them have a preference.

        • OneWingedButterfly

          Holla!!!!!

      • reese

        No, we couldn’t.  Or features, voice, hair and what if it rains. He isn’t asking people to wear make up or dress straight.  Gay people aren’t all flamboyant.  It is silly argument besides he is not saying not be gay or even not look gay.  I don’t talk about my personal life at work.  For all they know I might be gay, whorish or a virgin.  I know alot of gay people who do not discuss their personal life.  And even more straight people.

    • Phtoito

      Spoken by someone who clearly has never stopped to think…really think…about just how integral one’s sexual orientation is to one’s person-hood.

      Your argument is fatally flawed for two reasons.

      First, you assume it is possible, even desirable, for gay people to live a lifetime deprived of love and companionship, where their every waking moment is consumed by the constant terror of their “secret” being discovered, and they risk permanent rejection and ostracism from friends, family and society as the result of even the slightest misstep.

      Second, you expect people to endure such a miserable existence as the price they must pay in order to avoid discrimination, harassment and violence.

  • mykelb

    “The barometer of where one is on human rights questions is no longer the black community, it’s the gay community. Because it is the community which is most easily mistreated.”

    • mykelb

      –Bayard Rustin

  • Deacon

    I find that the gay community is pushing the agenda beyond “Respect us and treat us like everyone else” to attacking the Christian faith and many parental requests / views.  Too many LGBT advocates want others to respect them but in the meantime dont respect others.  The gay is not the new black.  The black civil rights movement pushed for equality.  We didnt belittle nor disregard others in the process.  Sorry, it’s not the same thing. 

    • Cottonmather123

      The same Bible that you use to justify second-class treatment of gays was used to justify awful treatment of blacks. Do you expect gays to smilingly accept laws that denigrate and disregard their families? It is an outrage that gays, like blacks, were until recently prohibited from serving in the armed forces. And its an outrage today that kim kardashian gets full rights for her 90 day straight marriage when gay couples together for 40 years have no rights…sometimes resulting in a partner being deported. Christians have not shown gays love….they have shown them only judgment and sanctimony. And THAT is a sin.

      • Cottonmather123

        Also, what exactly do you mean that gays disregard parental requests? Like a parental request not to be gay near their kids? How did blacks respond to white parents’ parental requests not to have blacks in their schools? A “civil” conversation over tea that you seem to imagine. No, they fought, rallied in the streets, marched and were assertive — as well they should have been. There is no religious right to go to an all white nor is there a religious right to keep gays or discussions referencing gay families out of school. The real disgrace is how vitriolic abd unwelcoming christians are to gays…i dont blame any gay from trying to get away fromso called christians who are.supposed to love but instead just judge, and sweep aside homosexuality as a bad choice. Im sure gays love hearing straights explain being gay as much as blacks love hearing whites explain being black

        • Deacon

          Gays tend to say that quite often..That Christians use the bible to justify mistreatment of gays.  No. Christians use the bible to stand up for our beliefs that the gay lifestyle is not acceptable in God’s eyes. No where in the bible does it say to do harm, ridicule, or mistreat gays. I have never done so. Those that do, do so on their own accord. So why is the LGBT community attacking all Christians b/c some are bigoted? But let’s be real, as soon as a person says that they disagree with the gay lifestyle, gays go at them.  Instead of accepting that everyone is not pro gay but still dont mistreat gays.   You are gay, that’s your deal.  You want to make it mine (by that I mean you want acceptance and support) but then you disrespect my beliefs. Does that sand fair?
          And why not respect parents’ wishes regarding what they want to teach their children?  Our religion is a big part of our life.  By expecting us to disregard what we want to teach them is clear proof that gays are disrespecting others.  This is why I say gay is not the new blacks.  Blacks never wanted to disrespect others.

          • mykelb

            Your beliefs have no purpose in public policy.  You can believe what you want, but you do not have a Constitutional right to force me to believe it.

            • jack sprat

              He has every bit as much of a right to seek to prevent you from effecting his conscience in the world, as do you. By what light each of you chooses to guide yourselves, is no one’s choice but your own.

              • jack sprat

                S/B “…to seek to effect his conscience in the world, as do you your own.”

          • Luke

            Why would you be “not pro-gay”? It is not something that you can “like” or “don’t like”. There is no such thing as the gay-lifestyle (however, the christian-lifestyle does exist: and however it should be one of love and respect, it’s more often one of hate and judge).

            Really, just meet some random gays and you’ll see ‘they’ come in every color, have different tastes of fashion and music, and so on…
            Or do you rely on type of gays you see on television ? Well, I haven’t met one of them yet. And believe me, I know of a lot of gays.

            • Deacon

              Im not pro gay b/c of my beliefs.  I think that should be respected.  Just like, I as a Christian, respect every person I come acros, including gays. I have never disrespected a gay person because of their lifestyle, but so far I can say one gay  person has disrespected my beliefs per their comments. No I dont believe the gay lifestyle is right but I know enough about my religion to know that it is not my place to judge. Im not going to fall for that “Why would you be ‘not pro gay’?” “gay is not a lifestyle” mumble jumble. I dont so diversion rhetoric.  You dont have to agree with my stance just like I dont agree with yours.  But I have enough in me to respect you as a person and treat you like a human being.  By doing this, I dont have to fight your fight. 

              • DEACON

                REPLY TO PHTOITO

                You may not be gay, but the question still applies. Why do you expect me to throw away my beliefs because of your beliefs / view? Or the gay community? Your comparisons lack weight because regardless of the Catholics beliefs or The State vs. Loving, my beliefs dont sway because of history or because other situations are not understandable or discriminatory to you and/or me. My beliefs are come from my religion not from society. I put my religion first. That’s the point. I never considered changing my stance because society’s pressure or society says it’s the right thing to do.
                You assumed I was a man. And too bad you had to make a dig. When people have discussions, once someone has to resort to even the slightest insult that means they are running out of gas.

                • Phtoito

                  Once again, I must repeat myself:  No one is forcing you to change your personal beliefs. 

                  By all means, continue to believe as you do.  However, peer pressure from friends, family, or society in general to abandon these views is absolutely not a violation of your religious freedom.  

                  I have absolutely no interest in debating theology, competing biblical interpretations or what Jesus did or did not say.

                  My sole concern deals with equal justice under the law.

                  Every person has the right to believe what he or she wishes regarding religion.  No one has the right to have his or her religious beliefs enforced by the state.

                  It is clear that your religious beliefs precludes you from supporting marriage equality.  Like I said earlier, that’s fine.  But why should your views trump the religious and secular beliefs of others who believe that marriage should be available to all?

                  (To be clear, my views on marriage equality are shaped by the commands
                  of the U.S. Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment.  Therefore, the argument is not between your religious beliefs versus mine.)

                  • JACK SPRAT

                    “My sole concern deals with equal justice under the law. Every person has the right to believe what he or she wishes regarding religion. No one has the right to have his or her religious beliefs enforced by the state.”

                    To the contrary, your sole purpose lies in making one class of people, in the immortal phrase coined by George Orwell, “MORE EQUAL” under the law. Your focus on the result is a deft effort at clouding the nature of the RIGHT in question.

                    There is no right to secular marriage, of any sort. What’s more, the nature of any such institution, which necessarily includes its recognition by the State, is not foreordained, either by Church or by GLAAD.

                    The rights in question are those which allow competent citizens to seek to effect their conscience in the Ship of State and the Public Square. Among them, most certainly, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RIGHT TO PREVAIL.

            • jack sprat

              They surely must exist, if only in the minds of the mostly gay writers who create and animate those characters.

              If these be consequential stereotypes, then perhaps the gay community had best stop lionizing their creators, no?

          • brian k

            Deacon that is a great point.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say harm, kill or mistreat gay people.  Real Christians cannot and should not even condemn Gays, but to be gay is inconsistent with the teachings of the Church. Stop blaming religion or the Bible for the errors of human beings.

            • brian k

              P.S. I’m not even a religious person.

            • Luke

              indeed, teachings of the CHURCH. But shouldn’t it be about the teachings of Jezus ?

              • jack sprat

                What are you, some kind of radical?

            • Deacon

              I will not go against my faith for your right to marry.  Regarding jobs, Im not sure what you are speaking of.

              • Ridiculous

                No…but you will go against the constitution. The constitution says FREEDOM of religion and many religions support marriage equality for gays. You are so hypocritical because all you believe is freedom of YOUR religion. You are so selfish. Your behavior goes against the very core of your own beliefs. 

                I believe you have a right to believe whatever you want. However, you do NOT have the right to force your beliefs on me nor do you have the right to force your biblical laws upon our government and country. 

                • Msmykimoto2u

                  It didnt seem like he was forcing his religious beliefs on you at all. He was telling you what “he” believes and what “he” stands for and that he not agree with the lifestyles of homosexuals, not that he didnt like them as people. It seems to me like you are playing the homophobic card towards him and I think that is being just as judgemental as someone who who wants to ban gay marriages. I completely agree with Deacon. My religion and freedom of choice is why I choose not to agree with the homosexual lifestyle but at the same time Im not going to run up in a ceremony with a picket sign and try to stop a gay marriage from happening. Im also no going to call you out of your name, put you down because of your decisions or embarass you

                  • Msmykimoto2u

                    Thats not what being a true Christian is about but i agree there are many of us who are judgmental and homophobic who make us good Christians look bad. Just like their are many gays that make the gay community look bad. We are not forcing you to accept our beliefs just like you shouldnt force us to accept yours and we should be able to live together and have our own views without all the “phobia” terms being thrown at one another.

                    • WITNESS

                      Well Said.  It works both ways.

                  • Phtoito

                    Actually, when Deacon wrote, “I will not go against my faith for your right to marry,” that does sound like he’s forcing his religious views on others IF he meant that he would oppose state recognition of marriage equality through a referendum for example. 

                    It’s one thing for a religious community to decide not to officiate at a wedding they find objectionable.  It’s quite another for them to prevent the state from doing the same.

                    Remember that it is the state, and only the state that can create a legal marriage.  The rites that religions perform during a marriage ceremony are symbolic and carry no legal weight.

                    That is why religions have always been allowed to pick and choose which couples they are willing to perform marriage rites for.

                    • Deacon

                      If given a choice between gay rights to marry and my Christian faith, you expect me, as a Christian, to go against the Bible in order to please you.  So go against God for you??  No.  I wouldnt do that for anyone.  But that’s what you want.  You want me to say, it’s alright to do what I believe is not right to satisfy you.  Why?  God comes before you and others.  You dont have to understand nor agree and Im not expecting you to do so.  Im not falling for, “That does sound like he’s forcing his religious views on others.”  I never asked you to give up your homosexuality, but you are asking me to go against my faith.  So who is forcing their beliefs on who?? 

                    • Phtoito

                      Allow me to try to explain it to you in another way.

                      Everyone is free to believe whatever he or she wishes.  The state can not and does not attempt to force anyone to change their personal beliefs.

                      To repeat, no one is forcing you or anyone else to change how you feel about marriage equality.

                      In your heart of hearts, you can continue to believe that gays should not be allowed to marry until you day you die, just as there were, and are, people who still reject interracial marriage long after Loving v. Virginia.

                      They may view interracial marriage as an abomination, but these marriages are as valid as any other.  And no, requiring racist business owners, to cite just one example, to respect an interracial couple’s marriage as valid while conducting business transactions does NOT violate his religious freedom.

                      You may be surprised to learn that gay couples neither require nor seek your personal approval of their marriage.

                      Let me ask you this:  Would state recognition of a second marriage for someone violate the religious freedoms of Catholics guaranteed by the Constitution?

                      What if someone were to argue that YOUR right to marry violates their religious freedom?  Should the state thereby cite this “violation” of religious freedom as sufficient reason to deny you a marriage licence?

                      Finally, when you write “I never asked you to give up your homosexuality” you made an assumption and, well…you know what they say when you make assumptions.

                    • DEACON

                      REPLY BELOW

                    • jack sprat

                      He’s not arguing that you have no right to seek to remake the world as you would. He IS arguing that you have no special license to PREVAIL in your efforts.

                      On the other hand, it’s quite clear that you are earnestly intent to deny him the same rights, subject to the same caveat.

                    • Taahira Mcgee

                      Agreed

                    • jack sprat

                      “It’s one thing for a religious community to decide not to officiate at a wedding they find objectionable. It’s quite another for them to prevent the state from doing the same.”

                      Vicious nonsense. Yours is the argument of every Tyrant and would-be Tyrant who has ever lived. If a man hasn’t the right to enter the political arena with his conscience in tow, then he has NO rights at all.

                      Tyrants cannot abide the necessity of convincing others of the wisdom of the course which they would set for the Ship of State and the Public Square. They will brook no opposition.

                • jack sprat

                  You’re free to marry within any of those religions which do offer such support to gay marriage, regardless of which State in which you live.

                  Secular marriage, however, is properly a matter for representative government, plebiscite, or even Constitutional Amendment. (Whether or not it’s WISE to make such laws, is entirely another matter. The people reserve to themselves the right to err, whether against your interests, or in their favor.)

                  In point of fact, freedom of conscience is absolute. If I haven’t the right to seek to make the conclusions of that conscience real in the world, then I have no rights at all. Nor do you, which you would realize, were you not drunk with the recent successes of your movement.

            • Jack sprat

              Inasmuch as those LGBT people are, on average, already RICHER than even straight white people, forgive them if they’re wont to lump together your complaints with those of the 1%. Having to forgo the market price lobster on date night doesn’t quite register as deprivation in most AA households.

          • Adoantarel

            At points in the past (and sadly even today) there were parents who wanted to teach their children that blacks are inferior to whites, that blacks are the descendents of Cain, forever marked with his sin. They wanted to teach that the Bible taught that slavery was ok and that slaves ought to respect and be humble to their masters.

            Do you disprespect their beliefs by what you teach? Would you have their beliefs reflected in schools? I do not feel that gays or anyone should disparage all chrisitans. However, as I understand that not all christians are cruel to gay people, please understand that not all gay people are cruel to christians. You have an entire political party that espouses what you believe in terms of homosexuality. How exactly are you downtrodden in this scenario? How are you disrespecting?  If you think everyone ought to make a pretense of believing as you do, should never disagree, never argue their point, aren’t you as bad as you are accusing gay people of being? How is what you are doing not as disrespectful?

            • Deacon

              I wont teach my children that gays are inferior and Christians are superior because that is not true.  I will teach them that homosexuality is sinful because that is what I believe.  But I will tell them that they like all others have committed sins.  Therefore, they have no right to judge nor mistreat any other person because their views are different.  I will tell them that many will say horrible things about them because of their Christian views including calling them selfish and hypocrites.  But that they should stand firm b/c God is more important than anyone or anything on this Earth.  I will teach them that once people use insults or lies that means they should not return behavior. I will teach them that people use insults when they are not making headway with their argue and that they should never so the same. I will teach them that people will claim they are unloving and that their religion is not of love, but that those are insulting diversion tactics that shouldnt be used.  I will teach them that at the end of the day people will attempt to misuse verses of the people to say that we are hateful although those same people cant find a verse in the bible to back that up.  I will teach them to not feel guilty b/c other Christians misuse the bible to mistreat others.  Overall, I will teach them to love one another regardless if others believe it may not be love.

              • OneWingedButterfly

                very well said.

              • Msmykimoto2u

                Amen to that. You will raise a wonderful family

            • jack sprat

              You failed to follow the thread with sufficient care. It isn’t Deacon who advanced such an argument; rather it is a straw man proposed by those with whom he is arguing, so as to obfuscate the fact that they are arguing from the position that certain consciences should not be permitted the rights which inhere in all others; specifically, the right to seek to exercise said consciences in the Public Square and upon the Ship of State.

          • jack sprat

            I certainly don’t recall any blacks marching in protest past a Catholic Cathedral, naked as jaybirds, johnsons in their hands, pumping away. Nor do I recall any of them proceeding inside said Cathedral, there to chain their naked selves to the pews.

            Those were actions favorable to the Author of Lies. By their effrontery in His Presence, as well as the silence in their community at the outrage, did they make themselves known.

      • Deacon

        How are Christians not showing love?  By not agreeing with you.  I can love you without agreeing with you.  End of.

        • Cottonmather123

          Deacon, not, that’s not it at all.  Disagreeing is not being unloving.  But when Christians oppose basic gay rights — laws to prevent them from being fired for being gay, that’s not loving.  Opposing hospital visitation for loved ones is not is loving.  Opposing gay rights at every turn is not loving because it results in tears, sadness, broken families for gays.  You seem to think that you can join the anti-gay forces but still claim to be “loving” to gays.  See how loved you feel if your right to marry is stripped from you.  See how loved you feel when you’re fired for being black because protective laws were reversed.  Get my point?  My point is that love is more than about lip service.  It’s about showing love to people. 

      • JESSEVANDELL

        Yea that same bible was used as justification to abolish slavery as well. just felt like i should point that out.

        • Confidence

          It’s the people who incorrectly used the bible that are at fault.  Not the bible.

          • JESSEVANDELL

            exactly

            • WITNESS

              Yes, many falsely used The Bible to enslave our people.  But those who were truly of God used it to end slavery. Great Point.

      • ImaaLin

        Preach. :) 

      • jack sprat

        “The same Bible that you use to justify second-class treatment of gays was used to justify awful treatment of blacks.”

        That isn’t an accurate reading of history. In fact, Baptists in the South chose to LEAVE their own Church, when that Church was among the leading lights in the Abolitionist Movement. So, they formed a cult, Southern Baptism, whose SOLE purpose was to create a false Biblical message that would condemn Blacks to perpetual bondage. In fact, the odor of that false message was so powerful, that it even attached itself to that mainstream Baptist Church that was among the most radical of opponents to Slavery.

        The only sense in which your statement is accurate, is that in which a flood of counterfeit money tends to make people suspicious of the worth of the real thing.

    • Seriously?

      Oh my god, a Christian bemoaning his ‘reviled’ status in America! SO BRAVE.

      I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian, but you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As President, I’ll end Obama’s war on religion. And I’ll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again. I’m Rick Perry and I approve this message.