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.
America is about picking and choosing minority groups to discriminate against. Easy answer.
Or are you aware sociology is a predominately feminist, liberal, field of study? Almost everyone involved in that profession is a liberal. Look it up yourself.
Sociology has its own professional jargon. A "group" are people that either know each other hanging out or have associations with one another. A "category" are those that share similar traits but don't know each other.
Sociology itself, a past text book of mine, blatantly gave drug addicts as an example of a "category," within the list of other categories it gave such as: black people, homosexuals, women, Republicans, Muslims etc.
So, given there is a multi-billion dollar war (the US has already spent more than a trillion dollars on the War on Drugs) on drugs, arresting drug addicts, giving them misdemeanor and felony records, giving the right of urine tests in jobs to discriminate against people that smoke marijuana, cocaine, or heroine... I would say it is evident the America is all about picking and choosing minorities to discriminate against.
Prince had millions, the former mayor of Toronto was fat, dressed in a business suit, and was not poor, just like not all gay people and transsexuals have HIV. Although, gay males have a higher rate of HIV infection than IV heroin addicts, and almost all male-to-female transsexuals become HIV infected (largely because almost all of them are prostitutes). So, before you pull up the image of some impoverished, skinny crackhead in Brazilian slum, just remember the statistics for social pathologies among transsexuals (be they in Brazil, Thailand, or the USA) could conjure up similar negative stereotypes, except that it is not politically correct to do that for transsexuals.
Was there actually a point buried in all that verbiage? Maybe it's just a rant you've been holding back and saw this as your opportunity to vent.
Gave me a good laugh. True too. Guess some marriages have their places...but I say let anyone marry, let them feel the "Burn"...
Some of the most content people I know, including me, are not married and a lot have no children and very peaceful...stress of raising children...yikes. Been that route but trying to live in a meditative state of mind.
I'm for same sex couples marrying and having all the rights and protections that it affords.
As far as the military is concerned, there are already regulations about heterosexual relationships and those same regulations should apply to same sex relationships.
Wants the government to keep its big nose out of our intimate sexual relationships unless, in the state's opinion, one couple's sexual relationship is sufficiently like another couple's that an association, wanted or not, should be created between the two by legally changing the meaning of a word while overturning the expressed will of the people with respect to the word's permissible use as well as centuries of religious precedent, and this, with no affirmative constitutional authority to do so.
Other than that, the state needs to stay out of our bedrooms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
I basically see marriage equality as any straight, gay, LGBTQ or asexual person can equally marry any other person identified as the opposite sex. There is no such thing as 'marriage' without genetic opposite sex partners.
I would be okay with legislatively created civil unions, but don't think they should receive government funded survivor benefits.
Survivor benefits were included in SS at a time when almost everyone married at a young age, had large families and two career couples were extremely rare. The intent was to help a surviving widow with young children survive the loss of the primary income earner and keep the children together with the surviving parent.
For the homosexual thought police, the benefits of marriage, to include SS survivor benefits, without the word marriage, was a non-starter because it didn't apply the full force of the federal government to eliminating unwanted thoughts in the minds of others.
My biggest question on the matter: Why is government involved with this sort of thing at all? Why is government involved in marriage to begin with?
If a gay couple head down to the Catholic Church and ask the priest to marry them, the priest will tell them, "No." So they head to the Methodist Church and the minister there says, "Yes" and marries them. Pretty simple stuff there. Why does the government need to get involved in that?
IMO the gov't has to get involved if and when the civil union aspect of the marriage falls apart and then you get into the legal aspects of division of property, assets, etc.
The question was posed to him. Trump responded that SSM was settled by SCOTUS and he has no problem with the outcome. He has no intent to pursue it further.
Trump's position on many issues is different than Pence's historical positions. This includes trade agreements, Iraq War Resolution and a variety of social issues.
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.
