“There is no legitimate comparison of the homosexual normalization effort with the struggle of Black Americans to secure their civil rights, and Black Americans have said so.”
In both the bans on interracial marriage and by accepting ‘gay marriage’ the state got its definition of marriage dead wrong. That’s pretty similar in my opinion. How it got there was not my point. My point was the definition the state uses is simply based on whatever judges, pols, or the voting public think about marriage at the time. And that’s it.
Freegards
> “In both the bans on interracial marriage and by accepting ‘gay marriage’ the state got its definition of marriage dead wrong.”
You think the clear definition that a marriage is between one woman and one man is wrong?
There is no state amendment or statute that says anything about a ‘BAN’. The amendments and statutes passed are affirmatively more narrow to protect against the encroachment of and decay by perverse elements.
> “That’s pretty similar in my opinion.”
You think the ‘bans’ of interracial and homosexual marriage are similar?
> “How it got there was not my point. My point was the definition the state uses is simply based on whatever judges, pols, or the voting public think about marriage at the time.”
Excuse me, but the way it has ‘gotten there’ is based on what judges think about marriage. So your statement contradicts itself.
Most of what the public thinks about marriage has been overruled by judges so that part of your statement is also not true.
By filling the thread with circular reasoning, the larger point of what distinguishes interracial marriage from homosexual marriage is removed. Interracial marriage restrictions were carried over by now abolished segregation laws.
I’ll say it again with emphasis:
“THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE COMPARISON OF THE HOMOSEXUAL NORMALIZATION EFFORT WITH THE STRUGGLE OF BLACK AMERICANS TO SECURE THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS, AND BLACK AMERICANS HAVE SAID SO.”