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.
I had a whole awesome post written out, but then I hit something on the keyboard and it all disappeared. So, since I don't feel like writing it all again, I'll keep it simple.
I voted on the poll earlier today, and I chose "sometimes" And to tell you the truth, the fact that there are only 6 votes in that catagory astounds me because the fact is, no matter what your sexual orientation, we could all possibly be a threat to the public good at one point or another. Gay people, in my opinion, should be free to live as they choose. And I am not even saying their lifestyle is a threat to the public good. I am saying that everyone could possibly do something or cause a chain of events to unfold that could be defined as a threat to the public good.
If you simply voted no, you voted with your heart on your sleeve, without putting a lot of thought into the actual question and the limitless possibilities of what man is capable of.
So, to wrap it up, I say no, their lifestyle choice is in no way a threat to the public good. But, that doesn't change the fact that anyone can pose such a threat in the right situation.
did you know that before the loving case there was a case in 1940'sCA that tested anti-miscegenation laws. it was first struck down in CA. the case involved a black man who wanted to marry a mexican (who back then was considered "anglo"). they were eventually able to get married...in CA.
people forget how pioneering CA was. its sad its not the same way now. school segregation was also first challeneged in 1940's CA. santa ana to be exact. whites didnt want mexicans in the same schools.
they were really screwed up back then. they just wanted to screw the colored folk left and right. but de jure segregation was struck donw in this case also. it later happened federally (de jure).
CA needs to pioneer progressive equality again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groar
i guess hawkeye would have told mrs. loving back then that if she wanted to get married to the man she loved, "If you don't like the law, get the votes and your state legislature to change it."
and would have supported the police barging into their house in the middle of the night and arresting them.
after all, it was against the law at the time for black and white people to marry in virginia, so they were breaking the law.
I had a whole awesome post written out, but then I hit something on the keyboard and it all disappeared. So, since I don't feel like writing it all again, I'll keep it simple.
I voted on the poll earlier today, and I chose "sometimes" And to tell you the truth, the fact that there are only 6 votes in that catagory astounds me because the fact is, no matter what your sexual orientation, we could all possibly be a threat to the public good at one point or another. Gay people, in my opinion, should be free to live as they choose. And I am not even saying their lifestyle is a threat to the public good. I am saying that everyone could possibly do something or cause a chain of events to unfold that could be defined as a threat to the public good.
If you simply voted no, you voted with your heart on your sleeve, without putting a lot of thought into the actual question and the limitless possibilities of what man is capable of.
So, to wrap it up, I say no, their lifestyle choice is in no way a threat to the public good. But, that doesn't change the fact that anyone can pose such a threat in the right situation.
What a bizarre way of looking at it. Of course, anyone can be a threat to society, but I think it's clear that the OP didn't intend the question to be interpreted that way.
p.s. in 1958, the year the lovings were arrested, 94% of americans opposed interracial marriage. and it wasn't until the 90s that the majority of americans approved of it.
these are the results of gallup polls taken between 1958 & 2007:
That's a great poll for everyone to see. We hear so many people today say that marriage rights should be left for "the people" to decide upon. They must be blind (or dim) if they don't realize that the majority will almost always deny the minority equal rights.
If we had waited for the general public to approve of it, interracial marriage wouldn't have been legal until the 1990s. Think about that.
Again, I think that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM psychiatric classification was a tremendous medical error, driven by politics, rather than science.
Keep believing whatever you want, just like the people who believe that we never really went to the moon. The rest of society has moved on.
It's really crazy to think that every major medical and psychological organization in the modern world removed homosexuality from their list of disorders out of political pressure, and that they've allowed millions of people around the world to live with this mental illness for decades. Tomfoolery, I tell ya.
1. HIV and STDs increase in areas where gay marriage is allowed- it is a public health issue
Where in the world did you get that from? And even if it were true, how could it be explained? It makes no sense.
Quote:
2. Domestic violence is greater in gay "domestic partherships" than heterosexals- it is therefore not a suitable place for children
Where did you get that information? I bet you could subdivide all kinds of people and say that certain groups shouldn't be allowed to marry because of domestic violence rates, or anything else that you might want to come up with. For example, poor people have higher rates of domestic violence than middle-income people. Perhaps we should make it illegal for the poor to get married.
Quote:
3. Gay divorce rates in Massachusetts are higher than heterosexual divorce rates- they are not stable. There are enough broken families
And divorce rates in Southern states are higher than in Northern states. Maybe we should stop Southerners from getting married too.
Quote:
4. Homosexuality only 35 years ago was a part of the DSM 1 diagnositc manual for psychiatry. It was removed for political reasons.
Prove it. (I know you can't.)
Quote:
5. Gay marriage is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution. The argument of "equality" does not wash, as there was never that right.
The courts will decide that in the end. Obviously, in some states, they've decided that marriage is indeed a right.
Quote:
6. The slippery slope- why not polygamy and bestiality. By the homosexual argument, this would lead to a defacto expansion of the definition of marriage.
You could apply the slippery slope argument to anything. It's worthless. Example: When the voting age was lowered to 18, some people said, "What's next? Are they going to allow children to vote too?" See how silly that is? The law is the law. Slippery slopes aren't written into the laws. If a polygamist wants to marry more than one woman, he'll need to fight his own battle. Same-sex marriage laws do not allow polygamy to occur.
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.
