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.
Religious minorities were also free to do whatever they wished in their own homes, provided they did not publicly engage in illicit sexual activity in ways that could threaten public morals.
Quote:
Much of the Qur'an exhorts Muslims to general moral values;
Quote:
Muslims have responded in a variety of ways to the forces of modernity. These responses cross the lines of tradition, sect and school. They affect the way sharia is interpreted by individuals in their personal lives, and the extent to which sharia is implemented in the public sphere by the state. These diverse movements can be referred to collectively as contemporary sharia(s).[43
Maybe your comment was a general "you," but it is true that people often assume anyone who supports this issue is gay... I even had one poster accuse me of personally destroying society and marriage. Okay, that's kinda weird considering I'm a straight single woman, who doesn't even have children.
Why do you feel you need to announce your straightness? Embarrassed to be mistaken as a Homosexual? Isn't that hypocritical?
The is just one battle in a long war that is being fought.
Today President Obama has come out in favor of same-sex marriage.
Mitt Romney has repeated his opposition to legalized same-sex marriage.
We must not forget that North Carolina, a very conservative state (the land of Jesse Helms) never allowed gay couples to marry. For gay people things are still the same, except the anti-marriage equality people have scored a symbolic victory by codifying the law against same-sex marriage in the state Constitution. So it was a victory of sorts, but in my estimation a symbolic victory only.
To those out there who are skipping around in delight and dancing a little dance over this symbolic victory I would like to reference one historic lesson: back in 1977 people who were opposed to gay rights, under the leadership of Anita Bryant succeeded in a very spectacular way to overturn a gay rights county ordinance in Miami-Dade County. The national media predicted this might be the death-knell of the infant "Gay Rights Movement." Anita's victory was by a two-to-one margin - something like 67% to 33%. However, the Miami-Dade gay community did not roll over and play dead. They started to gather signatures to reinstate the gay rights law. They lost again a couple of years later ... and again ... and again. They never gave up. In fact it took 4 tries and something like 15 or 16 years, but they voted the gay rights protections back in. The opposition finally gave up. Now, nearly 20 years later, not only Miami-Dade, but other surrounding counties like Broward, Palm Beach etc. have similar laws.
The bottom line: I believe the LGBT community can be like pit-bull dogs. Once they bite they won't let go. They will keep trying and trying and trying.
Legalized same sex marriage was repealed in Maine a couple of years ago. Guess what? It's on the ballot to re-instate it this November. Unlike North Carolina, polls in Maine indicate this time the LGBT community will prevail.
States can pass what they will, when this issue goes before the Supreme court, it will be overturned.
The only "distinguishing" issue between this and biracial relationships (which were also outlawed by states), is that homosexuality is viewed by some as a choice, and not a biological function.
But as marrying someone of the opposite sex, that is a different race isn't also a biological necessity, I really see no difference.
only a idiot would "think" that LOVING v. VIRGINIA can be used to allow 2 men to "marry" each other.
in order to make a right to marry in Loving it based it on previous cases
LOVING v. VIRGINIA
Quote:
Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).
now the previous case Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
Quote:
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
yes there's a right to marry but only when accompanied by procreation.
when you biologically engineer a way for 2 men to have a baby together we'll talk about a "right".
Ahh yes because cats and dogs can legally consent.....
And two people of the same sex can produce children. See how stupid it is. Not one thing logical about two people of the same sex getting married. It makes about as much sense at someone marrying a dog or cat that they love.
Marriage only makes sense when it is between a man and a woman as the amendment states. You can twist it around any way you want to but in the end the fact remains.
Congratulations to the citizens of North Carolina for having the decency and courage to say no to degeneracy and perversion, even in the face of criticism.
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.
