Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-27-2013, 05:02 PM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,286 posts, read 51,861,045 times
Reputation: 23660

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilt11 View Post
But her argument in relation to interracial marriage holds value in that there is no comparison of interracial marriage to gays in how she stated it. Interracial marriage should never have been illegal. Its a man and woman no matter the color of your skin. They still adhere to the traditional time tested meaning of marriage, husband AND wife.

For people to act as if gays are so held down that it can be compared to how blacks were treated is insane. Gays as men or women have the same freedoms as anyone else. They are free. And Ive stated, I have no arguments of them given same legal things as married couples get, but I do not view it nor should it be viewed as a normal marriage. Its not, and never will be no matter how much its tolerated or accepted. Its a union, not marriage.
Again, these are the same arguments they used against interracial marriage. You might think "they're still just a man & woman, regardless of race," but do you think the antis felt that way? Nope, in fact they used pretty much the EXACT concepts you're using in paragraph two. But you still can't admit these issues have many parallels? Can't tell if being obtuse on purpose or not.

 
Old 03-27-2013, 05:09 PM
 
353 posts, read 394,862 times
Reputation: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
Again, these are the same arguments they used against interracial marriage. You might think "they're still just a man & woman, regardless of race," but do you think the antis felt that way? Nope, in fact they used pretty much the EXACT concepts you're using in paragraph two. But you still can't admit these issues have many parallels? Can't tell if being obtuse on purpose or not.
They couldn't use the same arguments, because marriage wasn't redefined, since it was still between a man and a woman. Therefore, the crux of the issue was race in Loving Vs. Virginia.

While the crux of the issue for gays presently, is redefining marriage, to include same sex couples. This has widespread societal implications for families.
 
Old 03-27-2013, 05:09 PM
 
15,706 posts, read 11,755,057 times
Reputation: 7019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary20852 View Post
The above comment, doesn't warrant any serious response from me. Again, I don't have a problem with you as an individual, I do however have a problem with homosexuality.
And your basis for that is based on your own lack of education and desire to hate that which you don't understand. You cling to some butchered interpretation of an English Bible you haven't any understanding of, while ignoring the countless other biblical laws you ignore, and make statements about gays that are factually incorrect.
 
Old 03-27-2013, 05:10 PM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,286 posts, read 51,861,045 times
Reputation: 23660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary20852 View Post
I'm happy that you mentioned the Netherlands, they have one of the highest rates of people foregoing marriage altogether. Research studies actually indicate that once same sex marriage became legal, all marriage in that nation declined. Marriage is practically non existent there.

CBS - Marriage rate lowest since 1945 - Web magazine
Your second link is pointless, since it comes from an openly conservative-leaning source (thus cannot be trusted as unbiased). And I take it you didn't read the first link? I'm guessing not, since it show ZERO correlation between the marriage decline and gay marriage... it shows a steady decline since 1970, spiked briefly when the Baby Boomers' children started to marry. They do cite a drop since registered partnership was introduced, but that applies to both straight and gay couples. Nice try, but these numbers are no proof that GAY marriage has affected anything.

From the link:
There are three causes for the recent decline in the number of marriages. Firstly, the average age at first marriage has risen continually since the mid-1970s. In 1976, the average age of women who married for the first time was still under 23, whereas in 2005, partly due to the increasing cohabitation rate, the average age at first marriage for women had risen to nearly 30.
Secondly, the number of people at a marriageable age dropped in recent years. Lastly, there is the possibility to opt for the registered partnership alternative.


Who cares, anyway? If people don't want to get married, I don't really see how that affects you or anyone else outside of that family. And if you think marriage is such a serious and important event, don't you want to encourage it for ALL committed couples - gay or straight? I mean, it's not like they'll stop being gay and marry the opposite sex, just because you won't allow them to marry each other.
 
Old 03-27-2013, 05:11 PM
 
15,706 posts, read 11,755,057 times
Reputation: 7019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary20852 View Post
They couldn't use the same arguments, because marriage wasn't redefined, since it was still between a man and a woman. Therefore, the crux of the issue was race in Loving Vs. Virginia.
Changing the racial definitions is a redefinition, even if it's not one you disagree with.
 
Old 03-27-2013, 05:12 PM
 
Location: Maryland
18,630 posts, read 19,391,791 times
Reputation: 6462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilt11 View Post
I hear some people try to compare the gay marriage issue to what blacks went through. I just heard someone compare it to Jackie Robinson. Stop it. That's appalling. Homosexuals as men and women never suffered or are treated like blacks were. To make such a comparison is disgusting.

Civil rights are not being violated. You can do anything another normal man or woman can do.

This entire issue has been blown out of proportion with stupid rhetoric
It's a silly analogy Blacks weren't redefining marriage. Interracial marriages were recognized in 31 states and by the federal government,
 
Old 03-27-2013, 05:13 PM
 
15,706 posts, read 11,755,057 times
Reputation: 7019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary20852 View Post
So you don't care if behaviors are sinful? The only thing that matters is that you enjoy engaging in those activities?

I'm sure there are many cannibals, rapists, adulterers, child predators and murderers who share the same viewpoint. After all, if they didn't enjoy those activities, they wouldn't engage in them right?
Sin is a religious concept. We don't live in a theocracy, so your person belief on what constitutes sin (which is disagreed upon by countless people) is irrelevant.
 
Old 03-27-2013, 05:13 PM
 
Location: Maryland
18,630 posts, read 19,391,791 times
Reputation: 6462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero View Post
Changing the racial definitions is a redefinition, even if it's not one you disagree with.
No it's not. A group of states decided who could enter into the institution of marriage.
 
Old 03-27-2013, 05:14 PM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,286 posts, read 51,861,045 times
Reputation: 23660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary20852 View Post
They couldn't use the same arguments, because marriage wasn't redefined, since it was still between a man and a woman. Therefore, the crux of the issue was race in Loving Vs. Virginia.

While the crux of the issue for gays presently, is redefining marriage, to include same sex couples. This has widespread societal implications for families.
You guys really need to stop using the term "redefining," because that is inaccurate... they are merely looking to ADD a definition, not to REdefine what is already there. For example, the word "sweet" at one time only meant sugary - now it also means cool/nice, so does it no longer mean sugary?

But again I have to ask, WHO FLIPPIN' CARES??!! It's a word people, get over it!!! Sorry to yell, but I find this whole attitude just flabbergasting. Don't want to marry a gay person, then don't. Easy as that.
 
Old 03-27-2013, 05:16 PM
 
353 posts, read 394,862 times
Reputation: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 View Post
Your second link is pointless, since it comes from an openly conservative-leaning source (thus cannot be trusted as unbiased). And I take it you didn't read the first link? I'm guessing not, since it show ZERO correlation between the marriage decline and gay marriage... it shows a steady decline since 1970, spiked briefly when the Baby Boomers' children started to marry. They do cite a drop since registered partnership was introduced, but that applies to both straight and gay couples. Nice try, but these numbers are no proof that GAY marriage has affected anything.
The point was, overall marriage declined in the Netherlands. I find it interesting that you'd like to discount the second article which clearly points out that gay marriage is related to the overall drop in marriage rates in the Netherlands.

Would you be so quick to discount liberal sources? I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't; you'd gladly accept whatever was written by MSNBC, CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Quote:
From the link:
There are three causes for the recent decline in the number of marriages. Firstly, the average age at first marriage has risen continually since the mid-1970s. In 1976, the average age of women who married for the first time was still under 23, whereas in 2005, partly due to the increasing cohabitation rate, the average age at first marriage for women had risen to nearly 30.
Secondly, the number of people at a marriageable age dropped in recent years. Lastly, there is the possibility to opt for the registered partnership alternative.


Who cares, anyway? If people don't want to get married, I don't really see how that affects you or anyone else outside of that family. And if you think marriage is such a serious and important event, don't you want to encourage it for ALL committed couples - gay or straight? I mean, it's not like they'll stop being gay and marry the opposite sex, just because you won't allow them to marry each other.
I happen to care about families. It's not simply about the individual, in case you didn't know.
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.



All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top