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.
Wow, I despise the way fundamental, conservative Christians treat people they find to be abominations - especially homosexuals. But I wouldn't go so far as to call the shaming, ostracising, and persecution perpetuated by these conservative Christians enslavement.
Again, you're conflating religious and civil marriages. There is not any "essential character" of civil marriage. Civil marriage is a legal construction - it is defined entirely and exclusively by the language of civil marriage law. What you view as the "essential character" of marriage in your particular religious tradition means jack-sh*t when it comes to civil marriage and the law.
Next time maybe you can use facts.
only after liberals decided the dictionary was "homophobic"
my comment was on the fact that no one ever called the end of banning of interracial marriage, redefinition of marriage.
your ludicrous comments just proves I'm right that liberals redefined the word.
look up any old dictionary the word marriage and it has male and female (in one word or another) not one would say the word marriage means 2 people of the same race.
If you can't admit that gays are tying to redefine the word marriage there's no point in talking to you because your either a liar or a idiot.
only after liberals decided the dictionary was "homophobic"
my comment was on the fact that no one ever called the end of banning of interracial marriage, redefinition of marriage.
your ludicrous comments just proves I'm right that liberals redefined the word.
look up any old dictionary the word marriage and it has male and female (in one word or another) not one would say the word marriage means 2 people of the same race.
If you can't admit that gays are tying to redefine the word marriage there's no point in talking to you because your either a liar or a idiot.
Put your reading glasses back on buddy - you even quoted me when I said exactly what you claim I won't. Here are my words again:
"On June 23rd, 2011 New York law banned members of the same sex from marrying one another. On June 24th, 2011 New York law was redefined to eliminate any sex criteria in determining who is eligible to contract a civil marriage."
Again, for the like the dozenth time, civil marriage is defined entirely and exclusively by the language of civil marriage law. Any time civil marriage law is changed, civil marriage is redefined. I absolutely want to redefine civil marriage in the states that currently ban same-sex couples from contracting a civil marriage to include them. Such a redefinition will fix an invidious, unconstitutional example of discrimination in our laws.
Put your reading glasses back on buddy - you even quoted me when I said exactly what you claim I won't. Here are my words again:
"On June 23rd, 2011 New York law banned members of the same sex from marrying one another. On June 24th, 2011 New York law was redefined to eliminate any sex criteria in determining who is eligible to contract a civil marriage."
Again, for the like the dozenth time, civil marriage is defined entirely and exclusively by the language of civil marriage law. Any time civil marriage law is changed, civil marriage is redefined. I absolutely want to redefine civil marriage in the states that currently ban same-sex couples from contracting a civil marriage to include them. Such a redefinition will fix an invidious, unconstitutional example of discrimination in our laws.
you misunderstood my point it was only redefined regarding same gender but not by interracial because interracial marriages was just a specific type of marriage that wasn't allowed but didn't go against the definition of the word like this does.
before Loving interracial marriage was still referred to by people as a marriage.
same gender "marriage" would redefine the word marriage
interracial marriage didn't.
you didn't admit this point because you keep saying that interracial marriage redefined it which it didn't it just changed the parameters which were accepted in locals that banned interracial marriage. same gender "marriage" completely alters it.
you admitted only the parameters but not the definition of the word.
It's not a redefinition if it's between opposite sex people no matter what the color of skin. As I said, it's not redefining marriage because in order to redefine it you'd have to be able to prove that there is a difference more than cosmetic between black and white. It only applied to southern states because in other states there was no problem for interracial marriages, there was only a problem when it was between black and white, not black and asian, not white and asian etc. As if the "black" factor meant you were marrying another species of human. They couldn't prove there was a difference between black and white and the supreme court struck it down.
The supreme court has the gay marriage case I'll wait to see what they decide.
In the West Coast states in the 19th and early 20th century, the anti-miscegenation laws were primarily intended to prevent white-Asian marriages - mainly because there were more Asians than blacks, and anti-Asian racism was the primary form of racism. Also, prior to the Great Migrations there were few blacks in the West Coast states.
you misunderstood my point it was only redefined regarding same gender but not by interracial because interracial marriages was just a specific type of marriage that wasn't allowed but didn't go against the definition of the word like this does.
before Loving interracial marriage was still referred to by people as a marriage.
same gender "marriage" would redefine the word marriage
interracial marriage didn't.
you didn't admit this point because you keep saying that interracial marriage redefined it which it didn't it just changed the parameters which were accepted in locals that banned interracial marriage. same gender "marriage" completely alters it.
you admitted only the parameters but not the definition of the word.
Since you've advocated actually instituting "Nuremberg Laws" to prevent Jews from marrying non-Jews, one has to question your credibility.
"... homosexuality is ultimately defined by romantic attraction and sexual behavior."
"Skin color has no intrinsic moral quality, and there is no moral difference between being black or white... In contrast, romantic attractions and sexual behaviors often have moral (or immoral) qualities, and there is no constitutional “right” to fulfill one’s sexual and romantic desires."
Skin color has no intrinsic moral quality? No moral difference between being black or white? There is no moral difference between someone who is heterosexual verses one who is homosexual either. In fact, rape is an institution far more prevalent in the straight community, whereas in the gay community it is virtually non-existent. Statistics indicate a minimum of 1 in 4 women will be raped in her lifetime.
While skin color may have no moral quality per se, a consistently large percentage of our prison population remains people of color; while the black population in the U.S. remains at only 14%. An extremely large percentage of the black population is born out of wed lock, this also may denote your definition of moral character.
There is a constitutional right to marriage, and this option is not available to homosexual people throughout most of this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctrain
" Conservative gay journalist Charles Winecoff wrote, “Newsflash: blacks in America didn’t start out as hip-hop fashion designers; they were slaves. There’s a big difference between being able to enjoy a civil union with the same sex partner of your choice – and not being able to drink out of a water fountain... because you don’t have the right skin color.”
" Where in America are gays and lesbians being lynched today with societal approval? And what is the LGBT equivalent to the American slave trade?"
The very survival of homosexual people throughout the decades has depended considerably on their ability to stay invisible, and blend in. Otherwise, the homosexuals would systematically annihilated. It wasn't until the Matthew Sheppard case in 1998 that there was any recognition of the "lynchings" that went on in this country. To this day many people regard Matthew Sheppard's killers as heroes.
There is no heterogeneous society in the world that give blacks so many benefits from majority race, as they enjoy here in the U.S.
The human sex drive is innate, and like other things in nature it can vary. People who are gay are born that way, and should be accepted. However, because sexual orientation has to do with sex, people get very uptight about it.
You can get over your hate doctrain. It's really amazing someone such as yourself, can be filled with so much hatred. It must really suck that blacks can't be the only poster children for oppression in your book.
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.
...answer to another gay baiting troll
