5/7/2013 10:23 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 10:19:00 AM (view original):
They're comparable in this way:

1)  First, blacks were slaves and had no rights.
2)  Then, they were given "separate but equal rights" for many, many, many years
3)  Then, they achieved full rights.

So if you insist on applying the course of the civil rights movement for blacks to the SSM movement, you should be OK with moving from step 1 to step 2 as an incremental step, and not trying to move directly from step 1 to step 3 while skipping step 2 altogether.
I'm assuming that blacks fought for equal rights, and then were given "separate but equal rights" first.  Am I wrong?
5/7/2013 10:24 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 10:19:00 AM (view original):
They're comparable in this way:

1)  First, blacks were slaves and had no rights.
2)  Then, they were given "separate but equal rights" for many, many, many years
3)  Then, they achieved full rights.

So if you insist on applying the course of the civil rights movement for blacks to the SSM movement, you should be OK with moving from step 1 to step 2 as an incremental step, and not trying to move directly from step 1 to step 3 while skipping step 2 altogether.
So you think it was a good thing that blacks didnt get full rights right away?
5/7/2013 10:44 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/7/2013 10:23:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 10:19:00 AM (view original):
They're comparable in this way:

1)  First, blacks were slaves and had no rights.
2)  Then, they were given "separate but equal rights" for many, many, many years
3)  Then, they achieved full rights.

So if you insist on applying the course of the civil rights movement for blacks to the SSM movement, you should be OK with moving from step 1 to step 2 as an incremental step, and not trying to move directly from step 1 to step 3 while skipping step 2 altogether.
I'm assuming that blacks fought for equal rights, and then were given "separate but equal rights" first.  Am I wrong?
Sounds about right.
5/7/2013 10:47 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 10:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 10:19:00 AM (view original):
They're comparable in this way:

1)  First, blacks were slaves and had no rights.
2)  Then, they were given "separate but equal rights" for many, many, many years
3)  Then, they achieved full rights.

So if you insist on applying the course of the civil rights movement for blacks to the SSM movement, you should be OK with moving from step 1 to step 2 as an incremental step, and not trying to move directly from step 1 to step 3 while skipping step 2 altogether.
So you think it was a good thing that blacks didnt get full rights right away?
That's not my argument.  You're the one equating blacks and gays.  I'm just playing along with your analogy.

But what the heck . . . do you think blacks would have been happier if slavery existed for another 100 years or so until they suddenly got full equality?
5/7/2013 10:54 AM
I guess what I'm saying is that blacks fought for full equality and got separate but equal first.  The process wasn't slowed down because they asked for full equality instead of asking for "seperate but equal."
5/7/2013 11:02 AM
Like Mike said, it's pretty stupid and downright insulting to compare the plight of blacks with the "plight" of gays.  Gays are in a much better situation in 2013 than blacks were in 1865.
5/7/2013 11:03 AM

When offered "seperate but equal" should they have said "**** that ****!!"?

Because that seems to be what burnsluck is implying.

5/7/2013 11:04 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 11:02:00 AM (view original):
Like Mike said, it's pretty stupid and downright insulting to compare the plight of blacks with the "plight" of gays.  Gays are in a much better situation in 2013 than blacks were in 1865.
It's interesting that you're cool with playing along with the analogy until the analogy reaches a point that's difficult to argue, and then you claim it's insulting to compare the two.
5/7/2013 11:04 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 10:19:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 10:09:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 10:06:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 10:05:00 AM (view original):
I think it's important to fight for equal rights, and that includes the final 1%. Blacks didnt stop when they had separate drinking fountains even though they were exactly the same as white drinking fountains.
Comparing getting the exact same rights, with the exception of one word, to the plight of the blacks 50 years ago is goddam stupid.    Jesse Jackson should picket your house.
Why? It certainly isn't exactly the same but the situations are comparable.
Well, you're right.   Except for them not being comparable.

"You cannot eat in this establishment.  And, if you think you can, we might just hang your *** when the sun goes down."    
"You cannot call your union a marriage.  And, if you think you can, we'll see you in court!!!"

Yeah, pretty much the same thing. 
Yeah, this was ignored. 
5/7/2013 11:04 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2013 11:03:00 AM (view original):

When offered "seperate but equal" should they have said "**** that ****!!"?

Because that seems to be what burnsluck is implying.

I'm confident the gay community would not say "**** that ****" to equal rights for civil unions.
5/7/2013 11:06 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 10:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 10:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 10:19:00 AM (view original):
They're comparable in this way:

1)  First, blacks were slaves and had no rights.
2)  Then, they were given "separate but equal rights" for many, many, many years
3)  Then, they achieved full rights.

So if you insist on applying the course of the civil rights movement for blacks to the SSM movement, you should be OK with moving from step 1 to step 2 as an incremental step, and not trying to move directly from step 1 to step 3 while skipping step 2 altogether.
So you think it was a good thing that blacks didnt get full rights right away?
That's not my argument.  You're the one equating blacks and gays.  I'm just playing along with your analogy.

But what the heck . . . do you think blacks would have been happier if slavery existed for another 100 years or so until they suddenly got full equality?
You're going at it in the wrong direction. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that not giving blacks full equal rights was wrong, the incremental step was a mistake. In a much shorter time period, we're going to look back on this and see that it was a mistake not to give gays full marriage rights.
5/7/2013 11:21 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/7/2013 11:04:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 11:02:00 AM (view original):
Like Mike said, it's pretty stupid and downright insulting to compare the plight of blacks with the "plight" of gays.  Gays are in a much better situation in 2013 than blacks were in 1865.
It's interesting that you're cool with playing along with the analogy until the analogy reaches a point that's difficult to argue, and then you claim it's insulting to compare the two.
I think the blacks in 1865 were happy just to not be slaves anymore.  I don't think they were all about being vocal and indignant about their social status to the extent that gays and the "social cause wanna-be's" are today.

You really can't compare the two situations.
5/7/2013 11:23 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 11:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 10:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 10:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 10:19:00 AM (view original):
They're comparable in this way:

1)  First, blacks were slaves and had no rights.
2)  Then, they were given "separate but equal rights" for many, many, many years
3)  Then, they achieved full rights.

So if you insist on applying the course of the civil rights movement for blacks to the SSM movement, you should be OK with moving from step 1 to step 2 as an incremental step, and not trying to move directly from step 1 to step 3 while skipping step 2 altogether.
So you think it was a good thing that blacks didnt get full rights right away?
That's not my argument.  You're the one equating blacks and gays.  I'm just playing along with your analogy.

But what the heck . . . do you think blacks would have been happier if slavery existed for another 100 years or so until they suddenly got full equality?
You're going at it in the wrong direction. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that not giving blacks full equal rights was wrong, the incremental step was a mistake. In a much shorter time period, we're going to look back on this and see that it was a mistake not to give gays full marriage rights.
Are you saying that post-Civil War America was ready to openly accept blacks fully as equals in 1865?

You're monumentally ******* stupid if that's what you're trying to say.

In fact, that might be the stupidest thing you've ever posted in these forums.
5/7/2013 11:28 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 11:21:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/7/2013 11:04:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 11:02:00 AM (view original):
Like Mike said, it's pretty stupid and downright insulting to compare the plight of blacks with the "plight" of gays.  Gays are in a much better situation in 2013 than blacks were in 1865.
It's interesting that you're cool with playing along with the analogy until the analogy reaches a point that's difficult to argue, and then you claim it's insulting to compare the two.
I think the blacks in 1865 were happy just to not be slaves anymore.  I don't think they were all about being vocal and indignant about their social status to the extent that gays and the "social cause wanna-be's" are today.

You really can't compare the two situations.
That's fair.

I'm just arguing that gays aren't "setting themselves back" by trying to get gay marriage accepted.  I don't think the hamburger/toy analogies Mike has made are accurate.
5/7/2013 11:41 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 11:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 11:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 10:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/7/2013 10:24:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/7/2013 10:19:00 AM (view original):
They're comparable in this way:

1)  First, blacks were slaves and had no rights.
2)  Then, they were given "separate but equal rights" for many, many, many years
3)  Then, they achieved full rights.

So if you insist on applying the course of the civil rights movement for blacks to the SSM movement, you should be OK with moving from step 1 to step 2 as an incremental step, and not trying to move directly from step 1 to step 3 while skipping step 2 altogether.
So you think it was a good thing that blacks didnt get full rights right away?
That's not my argument.  You're the one equating blacks and gays.  I'm just playing along with your analogy.

But what the heck . . . do you think blacks would have been happier if slavery existed for another 100 years or so until they suddenly got full equality?
You're going at it in the wrong direction. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that not giving blacks full equal rights was wrong, the incremental step was a mistake. In a much shorter time period, we're going to look back on this and see that it was a mistake not to give gays full marriage rights.
Are you saying that post-Civil War America was ready to openly accept blacks fully as equals in 1865?

You're monumentally ******* stupid if that's what you're trying to say.

In fact, that might be the stupidest thing you've ever posted in these forums.
What America was or wasn't ready for is really irrelevant. You see that it was a mistake, as recently as 50 years ago, that we were treating blacks differently, right? Separate but equal was wrong.

Gays were never slaves. Gays were never lynched. Gays have it much better than pre-civil rights blacks did. The situations aren't the same, but they are comparable because we know that separate but equal is not the right way to do things.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.