|

05-31-2009, 06:11 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Texas
6,391 posts, read 1,715,901 times
Reputation: 1106
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nature's message
I am for interracial marriage and gay marriage. It's none of your business as to whom I marry, simply put.
|
Not sure how it works in Germany, but in the U.S. laws can restrict who is allowed to marry unless and until those laws are overturned by a court.
|
|

05-31-2009, 06:26 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
2,232 posts, read 727,128 times
Reputation: 1038
|
|
Quote:
|
The court argued that it was the duty of the state to protect marriage as a public institution. The state needed to protect married couples "against disturbances from without." By such "disturbances" the court meant interracial relationships. Intimate relationships between whites and blacks, "elements so heterogeneous that they must naturally cause discord, shame, disruption of family circles , and estrangement," were incompatible with the white family life that the state needed to protect, the court argued. Therefore such relationships had to be prohibited, and interracial couples had to be broken up.
|
Quote:
|
The Court emphasized that all parties were punished equally under section 3602: “The white man who lives in adultery with a black woman is punished in precisely the same manner, and to the same extent with the black woman. So also the white woman is punishable in precisely the same manner with the black man” (Id.).
|
Quote:
|
They then introduced the principle of symmetry – the claim that no violation of equality or discrimination on the basis of race had ensued because both blacks and whites convicted under the statute faced the same legal penalty (Id., see also Bank).
|
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~novkov/research/pacechap.htm
There is nothing new under the sun.
|
|

05-31-2009, 06:30 PM
|
|
Not a member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: um....guess
10,484 posts, read 3,574,197 times
Reputation: 1646
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK
The enjoyment part of it psychological. A lot of people use drugs to feel good about something, and indication that not all the pleasures are sexual, nor biological. However, sexual pleasure most often takes place before and though intercourse. But this sexual pleasure still is psychological. That's why masturbation, having sex with animals, and all sorts of deviancies still feel good to a lot of people.
|
What? Lots of things that feel bad OR good are psychological, what exactly is your point? You really didn't even answer the post. Do you only have sex for procreation purposes or do you have sex because you like it?
|
|

05-31-2009, 09:48 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: fla
1,513 posts, read 579,510 times
Reputation: 600
|
|
|
no similarities----one has to do with relating to and having sex---the other with fear of a different race
|
|

06-01-2009, 06:33 AM
|
|
Not a member
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
271 posts, read 35,255 times
Reputation: 52
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiseguy
this just goes to show you.. that if enough people like you got together to put a ballot measure up for a vote... you could theoretically ruin the marriages of people who are different races....
absolutely disgusting.... 
|
Yep, but i am smart enough to realize the ballot box don't work no more. Democrazy is crap.
|
|

06-01-2009, 06:39 AM
|
|
Gourmet Gamer Chef
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
1,338 posts, read 403,581 times
Reputation: 288
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by returningtonepa???
no similarities----one has to do with relating to and having sex---the other with fear of a different race
|
Because gay marriage is only related to having sex?
|
|

06-01-2009, 06:45 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Arizona's 86th Congressional District
7,076 posts, read 1,714,727 times
Reputation: 1139
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas
Only one, neither ban is constitutional, IMHO.
Casper
|
What part of the Constitution guarantees the right to same-sex marriage?
Here's a link.
LII: Constitution
|
|

06-01-2009, 06:47 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Arizona's 86th Congressional District
7,076 posts, read 1,714,727 times
Reputation: 1139
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langlen
Both bans are discriminatory to a minority, and neither ban should have existed. There is no reason to ban interracial couples from getting married, and there's n o reason to ban gays from getting married.
|
No one is banned from getting married. Anyone who wants may marry. They must marry one person of the opposite sex.
|
|

06-01-2009, 06:49 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Arizona's 86th Congressional District
7,076 posts, read 1,714,727 times
Reputation: 1139
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mississauga75
Hopefully "the man" isn't as oppressive in his reasoning to ban marriage based on sexuality and racial differences. I would like to add that the term racial difference is an oxymoron because there are no racial differences in humanity.
|
That's great news! Now we can end affirmative action. 
|
|

06-01-2009, 06:55 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
365 posts, read 165,920 times
Reputation: 119
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneWolf88
Yep, but i am smart enough to realize the ballot box don't work no more. Democrazy is crap.
|
So what are you planning on doing LoneWolf? 
If "Democracy is crap", then what type of political system do you want to see implemented? And how do you plan on doing it? 
Last edited by west_end_don; 06-01-2009 at 06:55 AM..
Reason: spelling
|
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
|
|