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.
it sounds to me like YOU are the one that is closed minded and judgmental. what you dont understand is that chick-fil-a appreciation day was NOT about gay rights, it was about FREEDOM OF SPEECH. there were many gay people who attended the day because they too understood that the CEO ahs the right to say the thing he said. if government an take away the right of someone to say they are against gay marriage, the the right to free speech is gone for EVERYBODY. once you understand that, then you will truly understand what chick-fil-a appreciation day was really about.
It was about gay rights. I think you missed the main message. Nobody censored the CEO. So how could it be about freedom of speech, when the issues were not about censorship (the negation of free speech)? They were about his inflammatory remarks and how people supported his remarks. The government upheld Westboro Baptist Church's right to make their remarks about homosexuals. Thus, there already is a legal precedent of the government allowing anti-homosexual remarks to be made, since it would violate the constitution for the government to legislate speech. This was prior to the event. Seeing how there was a legal precedent on the same issue and the government did not even attempt to censor the CEO, how is it about "freedom of speech"?
OK. I just read about that case. I saw nothing in there about homosexual sex or marriage, only about inter-racial sex and marriage. But, even if it had, the Fed. Gov't does not recognize homosexual marriage. If homosexual marriage is a "right" by this or that court decision, which is apparently what you are incinuating, wouldn't that be the opposite?
Charles Sands
37129
I would say that when you look at Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas the precedents are set for ruling gay marriage is protected under the Constitution. Right now I think the court would vote 5-4 and I am not sure which way if the issue comes up. If one conservative judge bites the dust and Obama still reigns gay marriage will be a constitutional right, as it should be.
The language posted by the OP sounds more like his mind was NOT changed and is still pro gay marriage.
Im also pro gay marriage. Chick Fil A had zero to do with it. With no gay marriage they still live together, do the deed... Marriage adds divorce, custody fights and all sorts of fun things. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Yes, rights come with responsibility. However, I can't adopt in some states with my partner. I can't visit my partner in the hospital, in spite of his wishes. That stupid legal distinction, makes a world of difference.
It was about gay rights. I think you missed the main message. Nobody censored the CEO. So how could it be about freedom of speech, when the issues were not about censorship (the negation of free speech)? They were about his inflammatory remarks and how people supported his remarks. The government upheld Westboro Baptist Church's right to make their remarks about homosexuals. Thus, there already is a legal precedent of the government allowing anti-homosexual remarks to be made, since it would violate the constitution for the government to legislate speech. This was prior to the event. Seeing how there was a legal precedent on the same issue and the government did not even attempt to censor the CEO, how is it about "freedom of speech"?
I would say that when you look at Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas the precedents are set for ruling gay marriage is protected under the Constitution. Right now I think the court would vote 5-4 and I am not sure which way if the issue comes up. If one conservative judge bites the dust and Obama still reigns gay marriage will be a constitutional right, as it should be.
In other words "political considerations" will affect whether or not another "right" will be "found" in the constitution for the benefit of a "certain" political party. Gee, that's encouraging.
In other words "political considerations" will affect whether or not another "right" will be "found" in the constitution for the benefit of a "certain" political party. Gee, that's encouraging.
Yes, that's the way it works. The oligarchs in black robes will have the final say.
The arguments against interracial marriage that were made back in the days before it was legal are eerily similar to the arguments against gay marriage today.
in Loving v. the State of Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case that overturned miscegenation laws:
It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.
"Think of the Children argument"
Quote:
Now if the state has an interest in marriage, if it has an interest in maximizing the number of stable marriages and in protecting the progeny of interracial marriages from these problems, then clearly. there is scientific evidence available that is so. It is not infrequent that the children of intermarried parents are referred to not merely as the children of intermarried parents but as the 'victims' of intermarried parents and as the 'martyrs' of intermarried parents.
Then there is the *las vegas argument or the gay pride argument.*
Quote:
On May 3, 1908, The New York Times reprinted national coverage of something called the "Black and Tan Festivity," which apparently was an event in which black people and white people ate together in New York City.
Many southern papers were upset by this, just as they are now upset when straight people and gay people mingle together at a pride parade.
What exactly is the "plight of the Gays?". Force everyone to consider their lifestyle as "normal" and and anyone that disagrees is a "homo-phobe?".
There's a good quote going around on this issue, tweeted recently:
“I hate the word homophobia. It’s not a phobia. You are not scared. You are an a******"
That pretty much sums it up.
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.
