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 United States Supreme Court held laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional in the case Loving v. Virginia, (1967). At that time 16 states still had laws prohibiting interracial marriages. That decision ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage."
Nice try trying to say that we never banned interracial marriage in this country.
Interesting! Im not at all surprised and this is going back to recorded history... there are probably examples well before that... I'd say Gay Marriage qualifies as a traditional marriage in the purest sense
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Park
The first recorded same-sex marriage was documented on an Egyptian tomb wall 4,000 years ago.
At least two Roman Emperors legally married a same-sex spouse.
It's kind of interesting how people bring up the civil rights matter of gay marriage the same way as interracial marriage was debated back in the 1960s. Actually, I am personally opposed to BOTH interracial and same sex marriage for various reasons ... but that's my own personal belief. As a Libertarian, I have no problem if same sex marriage becomes legal in all states ... however, I say let the citizens decide on this through ballot measures, not a panel of judges or a governing body.
I find lots of hypocrisy on both sides of the argument. Liberals who favor same sex marriage were the same ones who bashed marriage in general, claiming it's too much of a religious, sexist, or outdated tradition. Now, they are all in favor of gays getting married ... but why??? If marriage doesn't work for heterosexual couples, why would it work for homosexuals?
On the other hand, social/religious conservatives who blatantly oppose same sex marriage claim that traditional one man/one woman marriages hold communities together, are beneficial for society, and result in procreation. Really??? With the divorce rate hovering around 50%, and so much infidelity happening in many other marriages, I fail to see how this is beneficial for society. And procreation??? Nowadays, many babies are born to unmarried couples. And besides, when I was married, my wife & I decided not to have any children, so I guess we weren't considered legally married according to many of these religious tightwads.
Actually, I am personally opposed to BOTH interracial and same sex marriage for various reasons ... but that's my own personal belief. As a Libertarian,
Darn, and here I was hoping the libertarian crowd was free of uneducated bigots.
Darn, and here I was hoping the libertarian crowd was free of uneducated bigots.
Normally I don't respond to posters who resort to personal attacks ... however, I fail to see how I'm an "uneducated bigot" just because I'm personally opposed to both gay & interracial marriage. If the truth were known, lots of people have hangups about both kinds of marriages. Truth is, I'm not a big fan of marriage in general. I believe that everybody should do what they will according to their own values & personal beliefs, and to hell with what the trend is.
You may not be uneducated, but you are in fact a bigot. Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.
You hold prejudices on a basis of race and sexual orientation, as a result you treat other people with contempt and intolerance. It doesn't really get any more obvious...
It's sad that the right's last gasp rationale to oppose to gay marriage is a dictionary defense.
That's all "they", have to hang onto, it's their last hope of keeping gay people down, and as second class citizens. I, have to hang onto the hope, that one day very soon, my son and all gay people will be treated fairly and NOT as second class citizens! Then maybe, just maybe the hatred and judgement, by some, so called God fearing, "loving" religious people, will end! That's what I truly hope will happen, and gay people can be happy with who they are, and were made to be...by God, and not be told the way they "are" is a choice, and a sin, and because of that, they don't deserve the privilege of having a "marriage", and all of the rights that go along with it.
These tired old arguments didn't work before, and they won't work now.
That looks like a good link and I've been meaning to look for something like that, so thanks. I looked at it but will read the whole thing later.
Isn't there an argument to be made that the anti-"interracial marriage" laws were actually guilty of redefinition. Interracial marriage goes back several millenia. IIRC Abraham had a black wife.
It's simple. Redefinintion of words in the context of politics is a very bad idea. "Marriage" is an English word that has had a pretty clear definition for a long time. Now we've got a political interest group that wants to alter the definition.
The scary thing to me about the newspeak strategem is how effective it is. Consider the term "assault weapon," which was never used by firearms makers, but was coined by gun control advocates. Since it entered the lexicon, Americans have mostly supported banning them in polling, although doubtless few could define what it meant. Likewise with "partial birth abortion" on the right side of the aisle. It was a term never used by abortion providers, but coined by pro-life advocates. And likewise, poll data shows more often than not that Americans support a ban, even though most could not define it.
I am old enough to recall how the Nixon admin was famous for the use of newspeak. When caught in BS, they backtracked by terming said BS as "inoperative." The Obama admin is equally skilled at this game. Blowing billions of taxpayer dollars to line the pockets of cronies is termed "economic stimulus" and the MSM buys it hook, line, & sinker.
If lefties and gay activists wanted to call it "civil unions," I would be on board in a heartbeat, as I think would 99 percent of Americans, even evangelicals. But that's not enough; the left insists that they must have the power to redefine a word. That makes me nervous.
You mean like 'redefining' the word VOTER from "white male property owner", to a male or female of any race who is over 18 and a citizen?
Scary stuff!
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.
