You can "roll your eyes" all you want.....but given the chronology of the posts, the objective reader sees my point regardless whether you admit your ploys or not.
Learn to use the quotes, ditzyliberal, and one could follow the thread easily. You have not shown one damn instance of where I distorted any chronology. You don't need to repost everything that has been previously stated in each and every thread and I grow tired of fixing your messes. Your butchering of the posts only makes the thread as convoluted as your political views.
Why don't you grow up and be honest for a change? Here's what YOU wrote: "They don't need to be able to identify them through visual information alone."
You keep trying to IGNORE or DOWNPLAY THE FACT that the history of discrimintion against black Americans WAS EXACTLY THAT....VISUAL IDENTIFICATION. You keep stating a moot point that discrimination IN GENERAL doesnt' require visual identification. No shit sherlock, BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT I'VE BEEN MAKING. Gay folk for the most part cannot be physically identified..and they are NOT a race or ethnic group. So their comparison to black civil rights movement is INCORRECT IN TWO MAJOR ASPECTS.
It does not make their comparison invalid. It simply makes them different. The method of target identification is not an essential to discrimination. Therefore, they share many similiarties which is why they are both labeled discrimination, duh. One can compare those many similiarities.
I noted that you avoided my point regarding the black man who is also gay. That is A-typical of the cowardly and dishonest attitude that some gay advocates take when one of their talking points is disproved....they just ignore what they don't like and continuing to repeat their false assertions and allegations.
I did not ignore anything. I responded that you have just compared two different forms of discrimination and shown them to be similar.
You throw this in as a typical dodge to avoid dealing with my logical explanation of the flaw in your assertion that gay civil rights movement is an on-par comparison to black civil rights movement. To ease your fevered brow, I'm NOT arguing about religion or caste, and dicrimination against ethnic groups requires one to acknowledge a RACIAL and not a SEXUAL bias. ANYONE CAN BE GAY, but NOT everyone can be Polish, or Puerto Rican or Serbian or Irish or Maltese, etc., etc. Those are ethnic derivatives of RACES. Nothing "chickenshit" about that....but you sure as hell want to pretend there is no difference.
I throw this in to show that your point of target identification is irrelevant to the determination of whether discrimination exists or whether it violates the rights of others. YOU ARE STILL EVADING. Everyone can be Catholic.
The rest is just more of you repeating your irrelevant statements and failing to answer why it matters. I never denied that a black person is more easily identified than a gay person. It is obviously true to anybody with vision. So? That's not a huge insight, ditzyliberal. Did you think we did not know this or your other gems, gays are not a race?
If your point is that the ease with which being black is identifiable lead to a greater pervasiveness in the discrimination... Again, yep. Gays don't have it that bad. While I believe they should be free to be who they are, I would certainly rather be discriminated based on something that I could escape briefly, through obscuring. That does not justify the discrimination and gays should not have to be closeted.
My argument has never been with the factual parts of your point. My argument has been with why you think it is relevant or makes comparisons between the similarities in the forms of discrimination invalid. It does not.
