Liberal activist gays continue to trivialize actual struggle and suffering
From an article entitled: "Gay pride event has color and politics":
"'We're where black rights were in the '60s,' [Julie Kaufman of Marshall, WI] said."
Really? So gays have, historically, been been kidnapped from a foreign land, herded onto ships like cattle, imprisoned on wooden slats stacked 3 feet on top of one another and on which they could barely move, transported across the Atlantic Ocean in a journey that took months, where they arrived in the US diseased and malnourished, only to be sold into slavery, to be beaten by their "masters," raped by their "owners," selectively mated by their "keepers," only to have their children seized and sold at auction, never to see them again, forced to continue in this living hell for generations and generations, with no opportunities, until the Constitution was penned, the founding document of this very nation, only to identify them as 3/5 of a person, as less than a person, for four score until the Civil War was fought, so they could be "free" to live in abject poverty, to live under Jim Crow, to get beaten for voting, to get beaten for anything, to get lynched for voting, to get lynched for breathing, to live in segregated society, where they weren't welcome in restaurants, weren't welcome on busses, weren't welcome to drink out of the same goddamned water fountain as the rest of "society," for year after year after year, to have no opportunities, to be treated as less than human, less than a person, on the level of an animal, until a scant 60 years ago?
No, Julie Kaufman.
You're not even close.
Posted by jkhat at July 19, 2004 09:40 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/239
| Trackback Entries |
Comments
| # March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM Converted_Comment | |
I don't think that is what that one out of context line meant. I think they mean that they are simply not being treated as another citizen. They are not criminals. Why does their group have different rules? Anything by that would be considered unjust and not according to the constitution. Can you argue that? Not rationally. |
| # March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM Converted_Comment | |
first, i see that i shouldnt link to stories at that site again, or that i should at least make a local copy, as the original is no longer available. second, it isnt out of context on my part; that is exactly what she meant by the statement, according to the article. it's hard to imagine that statement meaning anything else, in any context. third, what are you talking about? who is not criminals? gays? who is not being treated like a citizen? gays? are you serious? how do you say something as ridiculous as that with a straight face? please tell me explicitly how gays are not being treated "as citizens," or how they are being treated as "criminals." fourth, what group has different rules? what are you talking about? this group, the gays, mind you, WANTS different rules. they currently dont have them. they are pushing for different rules. fifth, what is unjust "according to the constitution?" sixth, how is it unjust, "according to the constitution?" please tell me exactly what you find unjust, and support it with a constitutional argument. you might want to choose from : equal protection, due process, privileges and immunities, and the mythical penumbras of privacy. personally, i think that all of the arguments are losers, but hey, knock yourself out. if you cant put together a basic constitutional argument, how can you possible call something irrational? really, this is why i ignore most of the comments on the site. you charge in here making wild assertions and claims, and i really dont think you know what you are talking about. |