Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you speak of "rights" you mean "right to marry". Correct? Because there's no rights that heteros have that gays don't already have.
Does a homosexual person have less “rights” than a heterosexual person in virtue of their sexual desire? Of course not. A heterosexual person can marry an eligible member of the opposite sex of their choice. The same-sex attracted person has the exact same “right”. If they say they don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex, then my response is that they don’t have to.
"Derrr, look at me, I'm using the exact (failed) arguments that anti-miscegenists used back before the big ole gubmint decided to change de defnishion of marriage! I sure is smart!"
And nobody I know thinks "gays are bad, evil, horrible people." However, I do believe it is wrong, and an immoral practice. Sorry. I call it like I see it.
So what's so wrong with homosexuality as long as you don't indulge in it?
I couldn't care less if you don't believe in God. That's your businness. And for American's throughout our history (until perhaps modern times), marriage has been accepted as something between a man and a woman only, and has been seen as a covenant they make together in the sight of GOD! Whenever the state got involved to issue marriage licences, I don't know, but that did not change the meaning of the relationship as a covenant before GOD.
And no, you do not have a right to change what God has created to suit your immoral lifestyle.
LOL, try telling that to preachers who preach against the homosexual lifestyle and then go sneak off looking to indulge in homosexual sex. In that case, when you're a hypocrite or traitor to the personal values you project to the outside world, that is when homosexual activity becomes wrong.
Such "christian" compassion for your fellow man.
I sure hope you have no children or pets.
Who told you I was a "christian"?
I don't give a fig about organized religions.
And it's true, all kinds of people commit suicide. A gay teen or any other teen doesn't make their death any more dramatic or wasteful than anyone else who decides to "off" themself.
You know, if they did less whining, less in your face crap, theyd be better off. And quit acting like you are slaves and dont get to follow and live by the same Constitution and freedoms we all enjoy. You can. News flash. People dont have to like you. Especially if youre a flamboyant annoyance. I dont like to talk to people who speak ghetto or ebonics, doesnt mean I hate them. I just dont want anything to do with them. Same goes for gays. Do what you do, but try and act like a normal person. Try to talk like a normal person.
I see more gays it seems as the months go by. Strange to say the least that there are more people like this as time goes on. Perhaps its something in the water. It sure would be nice, if you could walk by someone or order food from somewhere, and not have a clue the person is gay.
Many "I like to have sex with my sex" people are like the damn Kardashians. Just cant get enough attention.
"Derrr, look at me, I'm using the exact (failed) arguments that anti-miscegenists used back before the big ole gubmint decided to change de defnishion of marriage! I sure is smart!"
You're actually misinformed. The "definition" of marriage wasn't changed when "black & white" were given the O.K. to marry in the southern states. It was not forbidden in the northern states. The law made no sense because it didn't prohibit Asian and Euro, or any other "racial extraction". Only black. The court understood that there was no difference between a white woman/man or black woman/man outside of their skin color, genetically women/men of all ethnicities serve the same function within a marriage. In order to roll back that ruling you would have to prove that there is a difference between humans "racially". Race is a false concept based on cultural standards, not scientific standards.
However, the definition of marriage would be changed for two people of the same sex to marry. So it's not the same thing.
You're actually misinformed. The "definition" of marriage wasn't changed when "black & white" were given the O.K. to marry in the southern states. It was not forbidden in the northern states. The law made no sense because it didn't prohibit Asian and Euro, or any other "racial extraction". Only black. The court understood that there was no difference between a white woman/man or black woman/man outside of their skin color, genetically women/men of all ethnicities serve the same function within a marriage. In order to roll back that ruling you would have to prove that there is a difference between humans "racially". Race is a false concept based on cultural standards, not scientific standards.
However, the definition of marriage would be changed for two people of the same sex to marry. So it's not the same thing.
The funny thing is, most states didn't have a prohibition on same sex marriage legally until the 70s. THEY changed the definition in the laws of several states to say that marriage is between one man and one woman. Before that very few states actually had laws AGAINST same sex marriage.
You're actually misinformed. The "definition" of marriage wasn't changed when "black & white" were given the O.K. to marry in the southern states. It was not forbidden in the northern states. The law made no sense because it didn't prohibit Asian and Euro, or any other "racial extraction". Only black. The court understood that there was no difference between a white woman/man or black woman/man outside of their skin color, genetically women/men of all ethnicities serve the same function within a marriage. In order to roll back that ruling you would have to prove that there is a difference between humans "racially". Race is a false concept based on cultural standards, not scientific standards.
However, the definition of marriage would be changed for two people of the same sex to marry. So it's not the same thing.
Way to miss the point!
Regardless, your argument is the same one advanced by anti-miscegenists:
"There is no discrimination. White people can marry white people only, black people can marry black people only."
Your argument (and that of the bro-ey Australian Christian D-bags who author the blog you have now linked to TWICE) is so bad, it's not even relied on by lawyers who are on your "side" of the debate. You would think if it was so compelling that people who ACTUALLY "do law" for a living would use that argument in court, right? But they don't. So what does that tell you?
But hey, you and the authors of your fundamentally flawed article can wallow in your own self delusion all you want.
With respect to miscegenation laws, what was essentially done was the government limited WHO could enter into the contract. The rights and responsibilities that attached to the contract were the same. That is EXACTLY the same thing that is happening vis-a-vis gay marriage. The law, as written, restricts the nature of the INDIVIDUALS that can enter into the contract. One male, one female. Changing the definition of who can ENTER INTO the contract does NOT change the definition of what it means to be married. The marriage contract is the same.
If a law is passed that says, "only persons of opposite sex can contract for the purchase of a house...." the act of property transfer in and of itself does not change only because it MUST be done by persons of opposite sex. Instead, ACCESS to the purchase contract is changed!!
Reference: The Virginia law: On March 20, 1924 the Virginia General Assembly passed two laws that had arisen out of contemporary concerns about eugenics and race: SB 219, entitled "The Racial Integrity Act."
The Racial Integrity Act required that a racial description of every person be recorded at birth and divided society into only two classifications: white and colored (all other, essentially, which included numerous American Indians). It defined race by the "one-drop rule", defining as "colored" persons with any African or Indian ancestry. It also expanded the scope of Virginia's ban on interracial marriage (anti-miscegenation law) by criminalizing all marriages between white persons and non-white persons. In 1967 the law was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in its ruling on Loving v. Virginia.
Agreed. Poor me, poor us, we are soooooo hated and alone...yakkity shmakkity.
Yes how dare Americans expect equal rights?!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
