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.
Where do I suggest anything about who owns "marriage?
I hesitate to bring up religion, but the first marriage was between Adam and Eve. Can't go much further back than that to talk about the conception of marriage.
So you believe the Earth is about 6,000 years old and you take the Bible literally?
Where do I suggest anything about who owns "marriage?
I hesitate to bring up religion, but the first marriage was between Adam and Eve. Can't go much further back than that to talk about the conception of marriage.
You repeat over and over that the "definition of marriage" should not be changed and that gays should go after civil unions and not "traditional marriage".
What other conclusion is to be drawn?
Adam and Eve are the first "marriage" according to Christianity. What about people who don't practice Christianity - we should all be bound by the dogma and beliefs of Christians, as well?
What an awful post. Reasonable people draw reasonable comparisons between two situations. There is no requirement that they be 100% the same, and it certainly doesn't indicate that gays or their supporters are disparaging the fight for racial equality. Total strawman bs on your part.
I didn't say that at all. Your leap to this conclusion is astounding in its inaccuracy.
The gays that I know who use the "black card" are white. No black gay person that I know uses the IR/Civil Rights Movement argument in why they want to get married. They simply say "We should be able to marry who we want". Therein lies the difference. Why do white gays feel the need to reference IR/Civil Rights movement?
And, no I don't see the parallel at all. IR marriage did not redefine marriage (between a man and a woman). I see absolutely no correlation between the two.
Well, I'm a Black gay and I see the parallels between the same-sex marriage and interracial marriage as well as many between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement for Blacks. They are rather glaring to me. People are keenly aware of the incredibly vast factual differences between these movements but are looking at the common themes that permeate them. Some of the language from SCOTUS's ruling in Loving v. Virginia is right at the crux of the arguments for same-sex marriage. Further, the arguments used against same-sex marriage are similar to those of interracial marriage such as the appeal to "tradition" (which really amounts to nothing more than a long history of deeply-ingrained bigotry in both cases) and narrow interpretations of personal religious beliefs (weak "ungodly" and "unnatural" arguments were flung around in both debates).
In either case, you essentially have an entire class of individuals who were treated completely differently under the law for no other reason than personal biases of the majority. In my anecdotal experience, the push back from some within the Black community on at least acknowledging the thematic parallels is indicative of the rampant homophobia within the community and also the racial tensions the exist within the gay community. Both are topics that warrant their own threads respectively.
You repeat over and over that the "definition of marriage" should not be changed and that gays should go after civil unions and not "traditional marriage".
What other conclusion is to be drawn?
Adam and Eve are the first "marriage" according to Christianity. What about people who don't practice Christianity - we should all be bound by the dogma and beliefs of Christians, as well?
Of course we should be. It's not like this is a nation of laws under which all people are treated equally (the law being "blind" as they say). No, this is a nation governed by religion and tradition.
I find your argument equally offensive. While I would agree that their is little in the history of African American vs gay discrimination that fact remains that just like the Civil Rights movement, the movements of gays, women's or he any other class of Americans who have been denied the full rights and benefits of citizenship are exactly the same. I find nothing offensive about these subsequent movements claiming either inspiration or commonality with the Civil Rights movement because the core foundation of them all is the furtherance of the rights of human beings to enjoy the fruits of liberty. In fact I find it to be a great source of pride because by comparing themselves to the Civil Rights movement of African Americans they give recognition to African Americans for bringing about social justice for all mankind.
Your entire post is about rights, when I've stated many times that I'm against the denial of rights for gays. You have a right to your own opinion; just as I do. And I find comparing the black struggle to the gay struggle to be extremely offensive. You are absolutely free to feel otherwise.
In threads that deal with gay marriage, it is inevitable that you will find posters who suggest that blacks "ought" to support gays because they too faced civil rights violations. It is this attitude of a perceived slight that I find off-putting. Blacks don't OWE gays their support.
I didn't say that at all. Your leap to this conclusion is astounding in its inaccuracy.
You stated several times that you found the comparsion to be offensive. What other logical conclusion can be made other than that you find the comparion of gay marriage to interracial marriage to be disparaging the latter?
The reason why states regulate marriage is because states have an interest in regulating marriage. The presumption that marriage stabilized couples led to the conclusion that marriage had a stabilizing influence on society, and that benefits a society because people prefer to invest in stable social systems rather than unstable social systems.
Given the foundation for states' interest in regulating marriage, the legal question becomes how same-sex marriage works against the interests of the state. Because if same-sex marriage does not work against the interests of the state, then the state should have no interest in regulating against it. In which case, regulations against it are purely discriminatory, and such discrimination is against the Constitution.
You phrase the legal question the wrong way. The question is, do states have the constitutional obligation to extend marriage rights, benefits, and duties to any group of people who want to marry.
In answer, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded---
"The package of government benefits and restrictions that accompany the institution of formal marriage serve a variety of purposes. The legislature -- or the people through the initiative process -- may rationally choose not to expand in wholesale fashion the groups entitled to those benefits."
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.
