The other morning I caught some footage of Bishop Paul Morton speaking at a news conference about the gay marriage debate as a civil rights issue:
In that case, the insult is mutual, you ignorant fuck.
I mentioned the same thinghere.
I can sort of see why. Blacks have struggled for a long time to get where they are. By aligning themselves with a controversial and misunderstood group, they could lose significant ground in public opinion. By aligning themselves with more conservative groups, they can gain legitimacy and respect, and say “We have morals just like White America.” And no one can blame them for it, as “They’ve suffered enough.”
That’s my working theory, anyway.
Doesn’t mean I agree with it.
No what it actually means is that black people can also be ignorant asses.
Certainly they can be, but even ignorant asses sometimes have lame rationales for their ignorance and assholery.
Dead link. Can you repost it?
What irks me the most is the implication that even if it were possible for blacks to choose to change the color of their skin in order to avoid discrimination, that there would be no need for a civil rights movement. How is that not just as insulting, if not moreso, to African Americans?
I think the implication is that there’s nothing wrong with being black, but there is something wrong with being gay.
My thoughts exactly. Why should religious freedom be a civil rights matter? It’s not like you can’t convert, right?
[QUOTE=honeydewgrrl]
Dead link. Can you repost it?
Here it is, from the Phelps thread
That’s what’s good about ignorance: everybody can share.
I’d like to point out, Bishop Morton, that thru the miracle of modern medical technology, it is indeed possible to bleach one’s skin and alter one’s features so that they would go from typically African American to Anglo American.
However, there has never been a documented case of a person going from exclusively homosexual desires and practices to exclusively heterosexual desires and practices. You, sir, are a FUCKING LIAR!! Might I remind you about that particular commandment against bearing false witness!
Ah but so long as there are “ex-gays” who are willing to suggest that they have, indeed, turned away from their “sinful former gay lifestyles,” and there are no “ex-black people” (save Michael Jackson) roaming the planet, there is room for people to make the suggestion that being gay is not an inate quality and that people can choose to be gay or choose not to be gay as they so please. 
“John Paulk, the poster boy for the ex-gays… was found in a gay bar in Washington. He said he was there to use the bathroom. But nobody thought to ask him *for what. *”
- Kate Clinton
Incidentally, a poll by the NAACP ran 79.4% in favour of states allowing same-sex marriage.
The poll suffered from small numbers, but at least it’s a clue that these clergy may not necessarily be representative of their communities.
It also suffered from being an internet poll.
Sadly, it appears that ~58% (the article isn’t all that clear) of black Americans oppose gay marriage, not significantly different from the 62% of all Americans. (cite). It appears that the earlier assertion in this thread that bigotry knows no color barrier on this issue is closer to the truth than that NAACP poll.
Which is why I made the provisions in my statement:
The agencies that claim to be able to affect this change have been notorious about disclosing their methods and showing their success rates. None of these techniques are approved by the APA or the AMA. They also seem to rely upon religious conversion techniques rather than more standard medical precedures. They’re frauds, plain and simple.
I think you are being a little rough on Morton.
Has anyone actually gone from black to white? And don’t tell me about Michael Jackson. He hasn’t looked black for about 15 years, but he has a long way to go before he looks white. He just looks like…Michael Jackson
Also, if it were to happen, how could you objectively document a person going from gay to straight? It seems that you would have to pretty much take the person’s word for it that he/she no longer has homosexual desires. If a guy went around claiming to be “cured” of his gay desires, especially if the claimed curing was done by a church, any number of people would certainly accuse him of having an agenda.
He looks translucent. He’ds literally as white as a sheet of paper. He’s whiter than I ever thought about being.
Diversity is the spice of life. Why is that such a horrible, threatening concept for some folks?
The world would SUCK if we were all just slices of heterosexual white wonderbread walking around.
Debating whether or not skin bleaching is possible, or becoming 100% “formerly gay” is possible, only distracts a the much simpler perspective: no one (except perhaps the individual) should give a good goddamn.
I don’t know of anyone one that has, but Morton is making the claim that it’s impossible. I counter this with the idea that medical science makes it a possibility. AFAIK, it wouldn’t require a major break-through in theory or technique to accomplish it. If there’s a plastic surgeon out there to confirm or deny this, I’ll be happy to listen.
That’s precisely my point! The APA and AMA deny that it’s possible and the various groups that claim to be able to do so haven’t released any relevant information about their success rates. Until those techniques can be reviewed and various tests set up to establish what the veracity of those techniques, I think it’s quite fair to call foul! To set up those tests and verify them, you’d have to establish a base-line. Who determines who is and is not a homosexual or even a heterosexual for that matter?! As you can see, it incredibly complicated!
On the other hand, Bishop Morton seems to think it’s an established fact. That’s one reason I think he’s a liar.