Dont compare gays not being able to marry to what blacks went through (constitutional, slavery)
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.
The point is we want to encourage biological parents to raise their children. Homosexual unions raising children are never perfect because, at MOST, only one parent is the biological parent. In other words, we're not necessarily depriving that kid of anything, he could have been raised by his biological parents which I think would be better for him in 99% of cases.
Huh? Perhaps you haven't come across this thing called "adoption," in which neither parent is the biological mother or father. It has been shown that loving families that give emotional support to children is more important than biological links. A stable adoptive family is better than a dysfunctional natural family.
but if anything is clear it is that same-sex couples are not just getting carried away by lust, giving their sexual impulses free rein, and having unplanned and unwanted children as the result.
This is an excellent point.
I haven't read through all 8 pages, so I don't know if this has been brought up. I am in favor of legalizing same-sex unions/marriage. But I don't know if it should be compared to blacks not being able to marry whites. When it was a racial issue, you had men and women who could not marry the opposite-sex, (non-incestual) person of his/her choice.
Currently, everyone, including gays, is free to marry the opposite-sex (non-incestual) person of his/her choice, a freedom that was denied blacks in the past.
So it depends on how it's worded. Should everyone be free to marry any other opposite-sex (non-incestual) person of his/her choice? Or should everyone be free to marry any other (non-incestual) person that they love?
I guess I disagree with comparing this to blacks and whites. We are now talking about completely changing the definition of marriage. I'm not opposed to that, but I don't see it the same as when blacks couldn't marry whites.
(btw, I kept inserting "non-incestual" because of other threads. You've probably seen em).
No, that is the question. The federal government is treating a straight person and a gay person differently under the same law. Do you understand that?
No, they're not. Any man can still marry any woman. The law does not state why a marriage must exist or place any conditions upon it. It doesn't state "A man may marry a woman that he loves." It's just one man and one woman.
It doesn't matter because this isn't about "redefining marriage." This is about the same law being applied differently to straights and gays, which is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.
Actually, it prevents the majority from receiving special privileges while dis-including a small minority. Hence the amendments to allow women the right to vote. Hence the amendment to allow blacks the right to vote. Etc, etc, etc.
Nobody is being disincluded.
Quote:
However, to give credence to your statement or give it one iota of merit: Please name at least one "special privilege" that you feel would be granted should a legally married homosexual couple be given accessibility to the exact same privileges/benefits/etc of a legally married heterosexual couple.
B/c they want to marry another person of the same sex. That is not allowed and would be considered a special privilege. I was actually speaking in generalities, though.
No, they're not. Any man can still marry any woman. The law does not state why a marriage must exist or place any conditions upon it. It doesn't state "A man may marry a woman that he loves." It's just one man and one woman.
And by that train of thought, if gay marriage is legalized, any man can marry any man or woman. Just as any woman can marry any man or woman.
Don't want to marry another woman? Don't do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
Nobody is being disincluded.
Then by your logic, nobody would be disincluded if gay marriage is legalized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
B/c they want to marry another person of the same sex. That is not allowed and would be considered a special privilege.
Actually it wouldn't. Because you would also have the privilege of marrying a woman if you so desired. It's just that you don't want to. Just like they don't want to marry somebody of the opposite gender.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
I was actually speaking in generalities, though.
What generalities, though?
For a generality to exist, there needs to exist specifics within it. If you can't name a single special privilege that would apply to homosexuals that would not apply to heterosexuals, then no generality exists.
No, it's offensive to even think that what gays are going through in 2012 is comparable to what blacks endured during slavery and even during the Civil Rights era.
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.
