Behaviors, including bigotry, are learned in childhood.

So is manipulation.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

Since someone finally admitted the 14th Amendment was not enough to grant black people full equality and that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was necessary for black people to receive full protection and equal rights with respect to public accommodation, you can no longer cling to an interpretation of the Constitution which says that the 14th Amendment provides equal protection against discrimination for LGBT citizens.


As for the notion homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.. (sigh)


The first thing I would have you do is actually meet as many gay people as you can and flat out ask them if they were born that way or if they chose to live that way. Seeing as NONE of these people will tell you they CHOSE to be gay, I will assume you will consider this to be a massive conspiracy clearly outlined as standard protocol in the infamous gay agenda which is known to be circulated in the seedy underground of the gay subculture.


So since you cannot trust first hand account from any number of gay people you meet.. I will then ask you if you could choose to be gay. C'mon... give it a try! All the er... other .. um.. gay guys are doing it! No? Being gay doesn't appeal to you? Not your thing? Shocking.


So if you cannot choose to be gay.. How could anyone else? And more importantly WHY???? Why would anyone choose to potentially get kicked out of their homes by coming out to their parents while they are under 18 (26% of gay kids who come out to their parents are kicked out of their homes)? Why would you choose to be exposed to ridicule, discrimination and violence when you could just choose to be straight instead? Why would one choose to place their job or living arrangements in jeopardy as I know of people who have been both fired (despite taking the worst performing sales territory to a top 3 sales territory) and evicted simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity? Why would anyone risk being alienated by family, friends and colleagues by CHOOSING to be gay?


Can you logically answer these questions? (Note: if you post a response about a demon taking over their bodies, it will not be accepted as a logical answer)

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

No it's not, it's simple reality. You normalize one sexual deviancy and you open the door for all the rest.

Being gay and being a pedophile are completely unrelated. Pedophilia requires a participant who in all likelihood has not yet developed a sense of personal sexuality and is certainly not capable of consent. It is the most disgusting thing there is as it sucks the souls and joy of life from kids. Granting equality to gay and transgender people will not pave the road for acceptance of pedophilia. The only places I have seen this normalized are areas with severe sexual repression due to strict religious interpretation (large sections of Afghanistan and the extended network of the Vatican).

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Who is this someone and what was their reasoning?

---

Section 5 of the 14th ammendment directs the congress to make reasonable legislation to ENFORCE the rights of section 1 including the equal protection clause.


The civil rights act of 1866 was reinacted in 1870 as an expression of this section and imposed civil redress for violations of the above amendment. The 15th amendment expressly provided the right to vote. These were all passed directed at freed slaves and were the foundation for the civil rights act of 1965, the voting rights act of 1965 and the civil rights act of 1968.


The amendments recognized the rights and as mentioned previously the supreme court at any time could have held in a majority opinion that any action that infringed on the above mentioned expressed rights would be unconstitutional. This can and has been used to protect lgbt citizens including in the majority opinion on gay marriage.


Section 5 was an acknowledgement that in certain aspects affirmative legislative directions to define discrimination and impose penalties for such behavior, both civil and criminal.


As in the case of the three major acts of the mid 60s they increased direct federal oversight and power over elections and housing policy to make the state more proactive in the preservation of covil rights for minorities instead of just addressing a redress of existing grievances. These acts were extensions of and prescribed by the above mentioned amendments to the constitution. While they are important in the maintinance of minority enfranchisement your continued assertion that the amendments themselves which perscribed fluid legislative enforcement were just NOT ENOUGH or were SUPPLANTED in some way is an exercise in drive by ignorance of inalienable rights.

---

I truly don't get your question. What are you asking?

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Oh. Flsportsgod responded to the question you failed to answer.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

So what you're saying is that the Constitution provided equality, but the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was necessary to make sure black people actually got it?

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

I said what i said in a very detailed way. The parts that you have trouble understanding u can point out.


I see that he responded but he didnt say what u said he said.


Which reminds me that im still waiting on your documentation and the blind lady.

---

And i answered ur question. I have detailed oppinions not talking points.

---

You have Faulkner-esque stream of consciousness posts where you could embrace the clipped sentence structure of Hemingway. That contributes to the disconnect. You give paragraphs of loosely structured points where you could simply say yes or no. Or... yes and here's why or No and here's why.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

I would love to address the blind lady by the way. I fantasize about it. And I will if you can tell me if my interpretation of your latest is accurate.


So the Constitution (amendments) gave black people equality, but the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was necessary because this equality, being constitutionally covered, was not being granted? Therefore, black people could enact legislation to make sure they were no longer discriminated against, because they could point to these amendments to make a legal argument?


Did I get it right?

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Close. When i get off we can talk more about the declaration of independence and the true foundations and ideals of our republic.

---

No it's not, it's simple reality. You normalize one sexual deviancy and you open the door for all the rest.

 

You're wrong, for one simple reason. What we're talking about is not sexuality, it's gender identification. Regardless, what for many was normal sexual behavior was incorrectly determined to be deviant thousands of years ago and is finally being set right.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I kind of think that this thread has more than run it's course.  If we want to discuss LGBT issues, perhaps a new thread should be started.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Run its course? Have you no concern for the blind lady? Plus I am so close to finally understanding jj's point of view. I think there's still meat on this bone threadmaster.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Can you answer my question? If the 14th Amendment covers this, why was there a need for the Civil Rights Act of 1968?

Because the 14th Amendment was not being adhered too.  The 14th Amendment does in fact address this.  Had the Amendment been followed to the letter of the law no additional protection would have been necessary.  

 

My beef with additional legislation is two fold.  

  1. We excuse the behavior of those who ignored the original laws that covered that very issue.

  2. Once you pass these types of specific protection laws you make it darn near impossible for employers to let an incompetent person of the newly specified group go for their incompetence.  Ask any HR person about the additional hoops and the longer time line in these cases.

 

Sorry for the delayed response to your question.  My work and life schedule did not provide me ample time for an adequate response.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

You're wrong, for one simple reason. What we're talking about is not sexuality, it's gender identification. Regardless, what for many was normal sexual behavior was incorrectly determined to be deviant thousands of years ago and is finally being set right.

 

You're simply wrong. LGBT et al are abnormalities. You can say reclassifying makes it normal, but when less than 2% of the population engage in such behavior it is clearly NOT the norm. It's not "being set right", it's society's choice to tolerate the abnormal. It's just funny that we've reached the point where we now live in a world where drinking alcohol is considered a disease and sexual perversion is called "normal." 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You're simply wrong. LGBT et al are abnormalities. You can say reclassifying makes it normal, but when less than 2% of the population engage in such behavior it is clearly NOT the norm. It's not "being set right", it's society's choice to tolerate the abnormal. It's just funny that we've reached the point where we now live in a world where drinking alcohol is considered a disease and sexual perversion is called "normal."

You see it as tolerating the abnormal, I see it as basic recognition of someone else's dignity.

---

You're simply wrong. LGBT et al are abnormalities. You can say reclassifying makes it normal, but when less than 2% of the population engage in such behavior it is clearly NOT the norm. It's not "being set right", it's society's choice to tolerate the abnormal. It's just funny that we've reached the point where we now live in a world where drinking alcohol is considered a disease and sexual perversion is called "normal."

It's society's choice to tolerate the abnormal? Well.. native Americans celebrated homosexuals for being both male and female in one person and called these people "two-spirited" ..until we killed them all. I guess they realized they were a naturally occurring deviation from the norm. Maybe they noticed the 10% of the ram population that never had sex with ewes, but frequently had sex with other rams. Or any of the other hundreds of species that displayed same sex or bisexual behavior. If you don't believe nature does this, look no further than the mutation in one gene which causes 2% of the world's population to have red hair. As for sexual perversion, I really hope you're not one of those guys who is thoroughly grossed out by two dudes having sex, but can't take your eyes off two girls getting it on, because that would make you a hypocrite. On that note, since the word so often comes up when describing sexual perversion, you might be surprised to know that heterosexuals practice sodomy more commonly than homosexuals.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!