Anonymous wrote:
Gosh, I guess the civil rights movement didn't have leaders. Let's pretend that churches don't have ministers, and cities don't have mayors. Let's pretend that there are no intellectuals studying black history or culture. Of course the first black president in America holds no influence over AA's in this country either. Black people in this country look up to no one.

And you don't think society has changed since the 1960s? No one is pretending that there aren't influential people within the culture. They're just not influential to the degree they were 40-50 years ago.

Does the feminist movement have a leader these days?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The community needs to be led"

How condescending.

You want to quarrel with everything and anything. If you think religion is the problem, then I wonder how you are going to fix it without changing what is spoken from the pulpit. You can't have it both ways. If the ministers are spreading the hate, they need to spread the tolerance.

Are you expecting me to apologize to you for "quarreling" with you because I find it distasteful that you feel the "black community" needs to be led?

Here's a hint: there's not a monolithic black community, just like there's not a monolithic white community. We don't have a leader, and honestly, the prevalent homophobia isn't going to end or even lessen much because Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton says so. Just like the young white men who throw around the word "fag" like it's nothing aren't going to be very influenced by a "white community leader."

I didn't say we have a single leader. Don't be obtuse. If you want to act all sensitive, save it for some white liberal who will buy it.

Who leads you? Who is your leader?

Gosh, I guess the civil rights movement didn't have leaders. Let's pretend that churches don't have ministers, and cities don't have mayors. Let's pretend that there are no intellectuals studying black history or culture. Of course the first black president in America holds no influence over AA's in this country either. Black people in this country look up to no one.

Anonymous wrote:Would anyone agree that being gay is natures way of removing a defective gene (gay) out of evolution and therefore gays should be allowed to do anything they want except procreate?

Yes, I'm sure there are people who would agree.

But since gay people are created when a man and a woman reproduce, that kind of thinking is illogical.

Would anyone agree that being gay is natures way of removing a defective gene (gay) out of evolution and therefore gays should be allowed to do anything they want except procreate?

I agree with you, 11:48.

I am all for marriage whether it's a man to a woman, a woman to a woman, or a man to a man.

It's the obsession that some people have with making black people the sole (or even the most important) reason that gay marriage isn't legal in most of the US. People seem fine clinging to incorrect statistics or just making things up, as long as it reinforces the idea that black people are the the reason gays can't get married. I don't understand why, unless it's just part of the whole "everything black people do is wrong" thing that's popular.

This narrative doesn't convince anyone who's against gay marriage to be for it, but it does irritate the many black people who are in favor of marriage equality.

I didn't find a problem with 11:38's post, since that poster was debating the actual issue. But the poster who says the black "community" needs to be led? Yeah, offensive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Fix it" "ministers are spreading the hate" ??[/b]


The Bible says homosexuality = sin.

Therefore, a pastor or priest or rabbi or any religious cleric would be correct to preach that homosexuality is wrong.

And, therefore, unless you are anti-semitic (or is the correct phrase anti-jewish?) or anti-Christian, then you should have no problem with them practicing their religious beliefs (even if you believe differently).

FYI - I think you are concurrently beefing with at least 2 posters here, as I didn't post the above, but nevertheless, I find it necessary to point out here as follows:

But the problem is that they are selectively picking and choose which parts of the Bible to follow. Leviticus now only preaches against homosexuality, it also adamantly proscribes against the consumption of shellfish and yet, I don't see those same anti-homosexuality preachers screaming from the pulpits of the evil Sodom and Gomorrah that is Red Lobster. These preachers have singled out some phrases of some parts of the Bible for their hellfire and brimstone sermonizing and it's hypocritical. We follow this, but that is no longer an issue. If it somehow is no longer a sin for the flocks to eat shellfish, then perhaps it's no longer a sin to be homosexual either.

I think you are debating with at least five or six different individuals. Most of us, if not all, are offended by your delivery, not your message. It is very very offensive. Personally, I believe that any two consenting adults who want to dive into wedding bliss should be allowed the opportunity. I am offended that DCUM has blown up with at least one white person damning the entire victory or defeat on an entire race, exclusive of his/her own. Talking about calling the pot calling the kettle black. It truly is a turnoff.

I also agree that the Bible is selective reading. But hey T.D. Jakes preaches the same message as Joyce Meyer, Billy Graham, mini-Graham, Pat Robertson, the Pope and that Joel Osten. How about you rail against them for awhile.

Anonymous wrote:Any black person against gay rights and same sex marriage is a hypocrite. How soon they forget how we went out on a limb for them to give them the right to vote.

Would you please refresh my memory. When the h-e-double toothpick did you go out on a limb for me? Who the frack is "we" and "them". Or, you are talking about those people. What people? What did your mother do? Your father, brother, uncle, aunt. Refresh my memory. TIA.

Anonymous wrote:
"Fix it" "ministers are spreading the hate" ??[/b]


The Bible says homosexuality = sin.

Therefore, a pastor or priest or rabbi or any religious cleric would be correct to preach that homosexuality is wrong.

And, therefore, unless you are anti-semitic (or is the correct phrase anti-jewish?) or anti-Christian, then you should have no problem with them practicing their religious beliefs (even if you believe differently).

FYI - I think you are concurrently beefing with at least 2 posters here, as I didn't post the above, but nevertheless, I find it necessary to point out here as follows:

But the problem is that they are selectively picking and choose which parts of the Bible to follow. Leviticus now only preaches against homosexuality, it also adamantly proscribes against the consumption of shellfish and yet, I don't see those same anti-homosexuality preachers screaming from the pulpits of the evil Sodom and Gomorrah that is Red Lobster. These preachers have singled out some phrases of some parts of the Bible for their hellfire and brimstone sermonizing and it's hypocritical. We follow this, but that is no longer an issue. If it somehow is no longer a sin for the flocks to eat shellfish, then perhaps it's no longer a sin to be homosexual either.

Anonymous wrote:


"Fix it" "ministers are spreading the hate" ??


The Bible says homosexuality = sin.

Therefore, a pastor or priest or rabbi or any religious cleric would be correct to preach that homosexuality is wrong.

And, therefore, unless you are anti-semitic (or is the correct phrase anti-jewish?) or anti-Christian, then you should have no problem with them practicing their religious beliefs (even if you believe differently).

FYI - I think you are concurrently beefing with at least 2 posters here, as I didn't post the above, but nevertheless, I find it necessary to point out here as follows:

For some reason, people assume that all posters who identify themselves as black in a thread are the same person. It's sad but funny, especially when the black posters have different viewpoints.

i dont think its just black voters that will defeat gay marriage in maryland

Anonymous wrote:Any black person against gay rights and same sex marriage is a hypocrite. How soon they forget how we went out on a limb for them to give them the right to vote.

Who is the "we" that went out on a limb? White people? Just like there are white people for fought for black civil rights, there are white people who... Well, I shouldn't have to explain that to you, right? And just like there were gay, white people who fought for black civil rights, there were gay, white people who were vehemently racist and wanted things to remain as they were. And the people who fought the hardest for black civil rights were black people. So when you say we, let me clear something up for you- you have never given anyone the right to vote. That was a battle fought by people black, white, and Asian- but you didn't do anything. The right to vote was earned and hard won, not given to anyone.

And it's not hypocritical- that debate was already hashed out in a thread a few months ago. Gay people should be allowed to marry because they deserve the same human rights as all others. You shouldn't try to "shame" people into supporting something based on elementary-school logic. Unless that logic is treat others how you want to be treated.

The bible also condones slavery. You'd be OK with a pastor, priest or rabbi preaching that slavery is OK?

Any black person against gay rights and same sex marriage is a hypocrite. How soon they forget how we went out on a limb for them to give them the right to vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The community needs to be led"

How condescending.

You want to quarrel with everything and anything. If you think religion is the problem, then I wonder how you are going to fix it without changing what is spoken from the pulpit. You can't have it both ways. If the ministers are spreading the hate, they need to spread the tolerance.

"Fix it" "ministers are spreading the hate" ??


The Bible says homosexuality = sin.

Therefore, a pastor or priest or rabbi or any religious cleric would be correct to preach that homosexuality is wrong.

And, therefore, unless you are anti-semitic (or is the correct phrase anti-jewish?) or anti-Christian, then you should have no problem with them practicing their religious beliefs (even if you believe differently).

FYI - I think you are concurrently beefing with at least 2 posters here, as I didn't post the above, but nevertheless, I find it necessary to point out here as follows:

What people seem to fail to realize is that even if 58% of black voters are against same-sex marriage, 42% are in favor of it.

Just like there are twenty-page long debates about same-sex marriage on DCUM, there are 20+ page long debate threads about the issue on predominately-black message boards, where those in favor of it try to reason with those against it. Just like on DCUM, those against it often don't care to actually debate and just stick to the religious justifications that support their beliefs, but those is favor of it still try.

So it's really off-putting to come to DCUM and read the numerous threads in which it is proclaimed that black people are keeping gay people from getting married. You're alienating allies when you post uniformed, blanket statements and fail to recognize that everyone doesn't think the same.