NationStates Jolt Archive

These days you see all of these Christians with "clever" shirts saying things like "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." In fact, if you take a look in the second page of the UN Proposals, you'll notice a proposal by Danzeemania to redefine marriage so that everyone except for homosexuals can get married.

Danzeemania (not to excessively blame one specific individual) adds that marriage is between any man and any woman, regardless of race, religion, whatever.

How nice of him, eh?

Fifty years ago, his protest would've been against inter-racial marriage: that's just how it goes.

Take the (late, thankfully) Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) who in 1948 ran for President on possibly the most offensive platform ever: if you're black, your civil rights are equal to those of the animals in animal testing facilities (i.e. none). He was also against inter-racial marriage.

Fast-forward to today: inter-racial marriage is completely legal. Sorry, homophobes, you're doomed to lose.

P.S.: Danzeemania states that he/she/it is not a homophobe, and I don't mean to single him/her/it out.

might you want to discuss this in the UN forum and not the general forum maybe?

And your making assumptions about Danzeemania. Please, don't be a prick and make assumptions about people.

if i ever asw some one wearing a shirt that said "god made adam and eve, not adam and steve" i would give them a piece of my mind, and by piece of my mind i would get about 30 sheets of paper togather ,roll them into a tube, and beat the person with it

if i ever asw some one wearing a shirt that said "god made adam and eve, not adam and steve" i would give them a piece of my mind, and by piece of my mind i would get about 30 sheets of paper togather ,roll them into a tube, and beat the person with it
Now now, let's not be violent Chessy.

might you want to discuss this in the UN forum and not the general forum maybe?

And your making assumptions about Danzeemania. Please, don't be a prick and make assumptions about people.

Sorry, I didn't see the UN forum.

And I didn't make any assumptions about Danzeemania: I said that he/she/it is not a homophobe, and as for the bit about protesting against inter-racial marriage, it is about 95% likely that had the Internet existed in the '50s, he/she/it would've been protesting about that there as well.

Learn the rules of grammar: it's worth it.

Start by capitalizing sentences.

And your typically is spelled you're when saying you are.

Boy, do I feel superior.

To each his own...weapon of choice.

Take the (late, thankfully) Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) who in 1948 ran for President on possibly the most offensive platform ever: if you're black, your civil rights are equal to those of the animals in animal testing facilities (i.e. none). He was also against inter-racial marriage.


Out of your ENTIRE post - there was one comment I found that was worthy of reply...

We had a similar person in our own British history - Enoch Powell.

John Enoch Powell was a controversial British politician, the controversy mainly stemming (with some irony) from a speech he made on immigration in 1968.

Even before his death, Powell had long been treated as an icon by the far right and as a demonic figure by the left. The irony is he was no friend of either, and his death was mourned in particular by that other great maverick of post-war British politics, Tony Benn, whom Powell had aided to renounce his peerage and so remain an elected MP. For someone who had mourned the loss of the British Empire (particularly India), Powell was often a lone voice, insisting that the British had no right to remain in Rhodesia and demanding that Ian Smith's regime be removed.

In April 1968 he made a controversial speech in Birmingham, in which he warned his audience of what he believed would be the consequences of continued unchecked immigration from the Commonwealth to Britain. Because of its allusion to Virgil saying that the Tiber would foam with blood, Powell's warning was christened the Rivers of Blood Speech by the press, and the name stuck.

With appalling timing, Powell only realised later that of all the days he could have made a speech that some regarded as racist, it was on the anniversary of Hitler's birth - during a period of Britain's history when it was known that various notorious neo-Nazis such as Colin Jordan and John Tyndall (the latter a future leader of the National Front and founder of the British National Party) held birthday parties in the Nazi leader's honour.

Edward Heath sacked Powell from his Shadow Cabinet and Powell never held another senior political post. However, Powell gained considerable support from the public, receiving over 100,000 letters, and his popularity contributed to the Tories' surprise General Election win in 1970.

if i ever asw some one wearing a shirt that said "god made adam and eve, not adam and steve" i would give them a piece of my mind, and by piece of my mind i would get about 30 sheets of paper togather ,roll them into a tube, and beat the person with it

Eh, such people haven't even studied their own religion, so I am comfortable knowing that I know more than them about it. =)

Sorry, I didn't see the UN forum.

And I didn't make any assumptions about Danzeemania: I said that he/she/it is not a homophobe, and as for the bit about protesting against inter-racial marriage, it is about 95% likely that had the Internet existed in the '50s, he/she/it would've been protesting about that there as well.

Learn the rules of grammar: it's worth it.

Start by capitalizing sentences.

And your typically is spelled you're when saying you are.

Boy, do I feel superior.
If you could show me evidence that someone who currently opposes gay marriage would have opposed inter-racial marriage in the fifties I'll give that to you, but until you prove you didn't pull that out of your butt.

And you'll find that pointing out grammar mistakes is not the brightest thing to do on the forums. As it makes you come across as an egotistical prick.

And anyways, it's the forums, not a paper for my Poli Sci 210 class.

Sorry, I didn't see the UN forum.

Glasses perhaps?

And your typically is spelled you're when saying you are.

Ummm...the past participle of the verb to spell is, in actuality, spelt. :rolleyes:

Boy, do I feel superior.

No, but I do.

Sorry, I didn't see the UN forum.

And I didn't make any assumptions about Danzeemania: I said that he/she/it is not a homophobe, and as for the bit about protesting against inter-racial marriage, it is about 95% likely that had the Internet existed in the '50s, he/she/it would've been protesting about that there as well.

Learn the rules of grammar: it's worth it.

Start by capitalizing sentences.

And your typically is spelled you're when saying you are.

Boy, do I feel superior.

I agree with the point you're trying to make but Mavis Beacon, please leave out the typing lessons. We don't argue about that kind of inane stuff around here.

You feel superior because you took the time to correctly form your post? Really? Yikes.

I agree with the point you're trying to make but Mavis Beacon, please leave out the typing lessons. We don't argue about that kind of inane stuff around here.

You feel superior because you took the time to correctly form your post? Really? Yikes.
If he did, he's a first.

I personally think you shouldn't have pointed any fingers, perhaps just stating your opinion (and it is a well defined and supported one) without refering to anyone in particular would have been more effective. All this thread will get you is people fiercely defending Dan. By the way, I just wanted to crush your arrogance by noting that; "And your typically is spelled you're when saying you are" should have 'your' quoted, as it sounds strange without it. I hate to nit-pick like that but you deserve it.

*Stares at Grammar Talk.* Um guys... wasn't this supposed to be about same-sex marrige? Maybe it's the pills talking, but apart from the fact that my Grammar Nazi is a lesbian, I don't see much correlation. So...


*Runs out on virtual lawn and puts up big pink triangle sign and starts pinning rainbow ribbons on virtual passers by. And if they're grouchy, stick 'um with the pins.*

:fluffle: I LOOOVE you all.

Actually, it's a little-known fact that an extension to Genesis was found and, as it turns out, God actually did create Adam and Steve.

Eve came later, when Adam got tired of anal sex.

But, what I was trying to point out when I initially posted was that his assertion that Dan. would have been against inter-racial marriage. How can you know such a thing? That was a long time ago, and most of us clearly weren't alive then.

You know, I ordered that "Adam, Eve, and Steve" movie through Netflixxx. It was a pretty raunchy romp (Leg Show gave it three thumbs up), but I don't think it's appropriate for a church to advertise it on a shirt.

What I want to know is why the heterophobes keep calling us homophobes?

If you could show me evidence that someone who currently opposes gay marriage would have opposed inter-racial marriage in the fifties I'll give that to you, but until you prove you didn't pull that out of your butt.

Well, looking back at the arguments in the fifties reveals the exact same tired arguments are being used today to fight the right of homosexuals to equal protection:

1) It's tradition!
2) God says so!
3) Think of the children!
4) Next we'll have people marrying goats!
5) They don't need marriage!
6) It'll ruin society!

Not convinced that Adam and Eve are the greatest role models, given the incest thing.

Well, looking back at the arguments in the fifties reveals the exact same tired arguments are being used today to fight the right of homosexuals to equal protection:

1) It's tradition!
2) God says so!
3) Think of the children!
4) Next we'll have people marrying goats!
5) They don't need marriage!
6) It'll ruin society!
People who are homophobes are not necessarily racist. I'm just saying that what is happening is a propaganda style slam that has no backing at all.

People who are homophobes are not necessarily racist.

In this day and age, no. The new bigotry is homophobia. The connection is in the bigotry, not the exact details.

I'm just saying that what is happening is a propaganda style slam that has no backing at all.

If one is copying word for word the exact arguments used in another issue, chances are that they would have backed that issue in its time. Is it for sure? No. But bigotry breeds bigotry.