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.
Remember it was the Republicans who freed the slaves against huge opposition from Democrats and Southern Jim Crow laws flourished for close to 100 years under the Democrats (including here in NC).
Lesson to be learned here is to never give blind allegiance to either political party. Doing so results in the exact nonsense as we saw with Amendment 1.
History has shown us that allegiance to a party hasn't been an issue. As a result of the Johnson Administration's push for civil rights in the mid 60s, those with an ideology associated with years of oppression toward the black community abandoned the Democratic Party in droves and rushed into the arms of the Republicans.
So, while it's true that a Republican administration led the charge on freeing the slaves, it held the ideology that allowed it to lead on that issue. Today, the ideological shift in both parties has changed the landscape.
To date, I haven't seen any recent shift in ideology that would suggest another "flip" is on the way that would mirror what happened post-Johnson. While it's true that even Republicans are softening on the issue of gay marriage, they certainly aren't leading the charge. While state Republican parties are still embedding "traditional" marriage language and "reparative therapy for gays" into their official state platforms, it's hard to give the overall Party any more credit other than being allowed to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming.
Many of your peculiar ilk are fond of saying that those opposed to homosexual behavior are "on the wrong side of history".
That history hasn't been written yet, and history is written by the victors. This is far from over.
I completely agree with you. The right had been fond of "victory" from DOMA to DADT etc. the right clamored about how if put to a vote, Marriage equality would never win and it was all liberal lies: prop 8 was proof...
Now fast forward to 2014.... Mainstream songs about marriage equality are the top 20 songs, month after month more states are added to the roster, 70% of Millenials approve of marriage equality, celebrities & professional athletes are coming out, multiple states have voted for marriage equality, majority of companies Are pro Equal marriage, churches, Charlottes major corporations matched in the Charlotte gay pride parade with the mayor of Charlotte as the lead under skyscrapers lit up in rainbow colors.
I agree with you. I probably wouldn't have 10 years ago. I would've never guessed it would have progressed this fast
Apparently you have also failed to see the lack of inheritance rights, the lack of child custody rights, the lack of healthcare rights, the lack of tax benefits, etc., etc. that gay couples are denied.
So I guess you can admit there is no denial of rights then? No one is denied the right to vote or anything like that.
However it seems some people equate marriage as the definition as "equal"?
If gay marriage were allowed in the future, most likely not by any vote but by a court (which is the reason bans are being struck down right now), then it must be recognized that you CANNOT DENY MARRIAGE TO ANYONE, ANYTIME.
No one has to 'love' the other, it can come down to simply two adults wanting a tax or inheritance benefits. No standards.
Legalizing, promoting, and supporting gay marriage is the is a nail in the coffin for civilization. What two consenting adults do in there private lives has nothing to do with marriage, and allowing for them to flaunt there lifestyle will only influence the younger generations into thinking it's all good and natural.
Look up the HIV/Aids rate amoung the homosexual community, the higher rates in sexual partners, and all the health risk that Tv doesn't tell you about. After looking that up, take a day to see what your children classrooms are teaching them about homosexuality.
Lets put 100 Homosexual couples on an island, and then lets put another 100 heterosexual couples on another. Then lets see which island will be completely gone in 100 years.
So I guess you can admit there is no denial of rights then? No one is denied the right to vote or anything like that.
However it seems some people equate marriage as the definition as "equal"?
If gay marriage were allowed in the future, most likely not by any vote but by a court (which is the reason bans are being struck down right now), then it must be recognized that you CANNOT DENY MARRIAGE TO ANYONE, ANYTIME.
No one has to 'love' the other, it can come down to simply two adults wanting a tax or inheritance benefits. No standards.
The "standards" of marriage went out the window a long time ago with soaring divorce rates
And to the simpleton "100 island" argument. Let's put 100 people who can't have children and see which island survives. Also, the "straight" island would most likely not be 100% straight... As far as I know, only straight people have had homosexual children so far.
But if you want to limit marriage to procreation, go tell that to people who can't have children. I'm assuming you're against people marrying if they can't have children. Should marriages be void after a certain age when people are making babies anymore?
The "standards" of marriage went out the window a long time ago with soaring divorce rates
And to the simpleton "100 island" argument. Let's put 100 people who can't have children and see which island survives. Also, the "straight" island would most likely not be 100% straight... As far as I know, only straight people have had homosexual children so far.
But if you want to limit marriage to procreation, go tell that to people who can't have children. I'm assuming you're against people marrying off they can't have children. Should marriages be void after a certain age when people are making babies anymore?
Speak rational please,
I'm not against ANY FORM OF MARRIAGE - and for the sake of simplicity, Emotions can never beat Logics.
Sorry, but no matter how much you Jabber on about nonsense, and no matter how much people agree with you, YOU came from a heterosexual union of two people.
The "standards" of marriage went out the window a long time ago with soaring divorce rates
And to the simpleton "100 island" argument. Let's put 100 people who can't have children and see which island survives. Also, the "straight" island would most likely not be 100% straight... As far as I know, only straight people have had homosexual children so far.
But if you want to limit marriage to procreation, go tell that to people who can't have children. I'm assuming you're against people marrying if they can't have children. Should marriages be void after a certain age when people are making babies anymore?
To add to the island scenario, the gay island will survive as long as straight people keep birthing gay people every now and then. Over time, the gay island will be less crowded as the straight island explodes with too many people and all the problems that come with over population (lack of food and water, pollution, etc.). While the gay island will probably have some initial dip in population, it will quickly recover as the exponentially more populated straight island has more children and a small percentage are shifted over to the gay island.
I'm not against ANY FORM OF MARRIAGE - and for the sake of simplicity, Emotions can never beat Logics.
Sorry, but no matter how much you Jabber on about nonsense, and no matter how much people agree with you, YOU came from a heterosexual union of two people.
Yes. let's talk logically. How in fact does allowing gay people the legal protection of marriage prevent heterosexual couples from having children or getting married? How will allowing gay couples to get married lower birth rates among straight couples? How does preventing gay couples from being legally wed actually increase birth rates among heterosexual couples? How, in fact, will society cease to exist by giving gay couples access to state and federal rights and responsibilities?
These seem to be the arguments I hear over and over with the overtones of drama usually reserved for a "safe the Earth from destruction" Sci-Fi movie. However, I have never heard a logical answer to the questions posed above. Perhaps that's why the arguments keep failing in court?
It seems to me that the argument is that by allowing gay couples to be legally wed somehow undoes the legality of straight couples getting married and having children. That makes absolutely no sense.
Yes. let's talk logically. How in fact does allowing gay people the legal protection of marriage prevent heterosexual couples from having children or getting married? How will allowing gay couples to get married lower birth rates among straight couples? How does preventing gay couples from being legally wed actually increase birth rates among heterosexual couples? How, in fact, will society cease to exist by giving gay couples access to state and federal rights and responsibilities?
These seem to be the arguments I hear over and over with the overtones of drama usually reserved for a "safe the Earth from destruction" Sci-Fi movie. However, I have never heard a logical answer to the questions posed above. Perhaps that's why the arguments keep failing in court?
It seems to me that the argument is that by allowing gay couples to be legally wed somehow undoes the legality of straight couples getting married and having children. That makes absolutely no sense.
It's all dealing with influence,
A Homosexual couple has nothing to do with me myself, but what about my child, your child, and your children childrens?
I've sat in a 3rd grade classroom and heard the teacher say "Homosexuality is natural". It's being taught left and right in schools, it's on every TV show, it's promoted through media like crazy, a gay celebrity is a idol in this society... Gay parades, gay pride, gay acceptance... the list goes on and on, just look at the gay football player that just came out the closet.
I've lived in Chicago for 20+ years and I've watched the north side of my city transformed into "Boys Town", It's actually called Boys Town. Rainbow flags all over the place, and all I'm asking is "Why". Especially with the falling nuclear family, why is homosexuality being promoted at this time?
The American Birth rates are falling like no tomorrow, care to explain why that isn't being promoted in pop culture today? Lets promote marriage and family, instead of trying to redefine what constitute what is marriage and family.
^ Sounds like someone is having a hard time with reality hitting them square in the face.
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.
