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.
But would it not be so much better and much more desirable if the people, the states and society willingly and voluntarily actually wanted this instead of requiring to be bent over and beaten into an unwilling submission? Apparently not and it should not be this way.
Ideally, this is how it would work. But that's not the case. Remember slavery? Southern states were so convinced it was ok, they actually formed their own country! What the states want is not always the ethical choice.
Now, if you want to actively teach people not to feel hatred towards homosexuals, that's a decent place to start. Keep religion out of as many things that aren't churches and we'd see significant improvements.
How would it be better for gay people to be denied equal rights until a sufficient number of bigots die off?
Do you also think it would've been better to let states slowly end institutionalized discrimination against black people on their own terms and in their own time? We'd still have states with segregation if that were the case.
The idea that we should let discrimination stand just to avoid hurting the delicate sensibilities of bigots is absurd and offensive to anyone who actually cares about the constitution.
I hate it when people try to compare the civil rights of the 1950s and 60s to the gay marriage as the "civil rights of today." They are completely different things. Nobody is making gays use a different drinking fountain, gays don't have to go to a separate school, gays don't have to sit in the back of the bus, gays don't have to sit in the balcony of a movie theater, etc. Also, only 2% of the US population is gay, a very small number.
And I agree that its wrong to go against the vote of the people. Most of the states where the bans have been struck down voted against gay marriage. The people in those states have spoken.
Yes, it would be better if more americans were willing to voluntarily recognize the ordinary civil rights of gay people.
But the courts are bound to recognize them no matter what others think.
Have you ever heard the expression "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it". Think about it. It would be much better if the horse wanted the water rather than force feeding it to him now would it not?
Ideally, this is how it would work...Now, if you want to actively teach people not to feel hatred towards homosexuals,...
Liking a group is something that has to be earned as it cannot be forced. Demonstrating tolerance, not even acceptance, just simple charity and lenience towards the religious and the believers with whom the homosexual doesn’t really care for to begin with will be the start of the same for your group. Sew vengeance and it is returned. The same with kindness.
I hate it when people try to compare the civil rights of the 1950s and 60s to the gay marriage as the "civil rights of today." They are completely different things. Nobody is making gays use a different drinking fountain, gays don't have to go to a separate school, gays don't have to sit in the back of the bus, gays don't have to sit in the balcony of a movie theater, etc. Also, only 2% of the US population is gay, a very small number.
So true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xboxmas
And I agree that its wrong to go against the vote of the people. Most of the states where the bans have been struck down voted against gay marriage. The people in those states have spoken.
The general public easily sees through the misdirection like that and wonders why the homosexual resorts to lies, trickery and deceit. When voters get overturned that is a failure, not a victory. For example suppose those who voted for a leader they wanted instead had their voices silenced, erased, overturned and decided by a court? Why even bother letting the people speak via their votes at all if a handful of individuals eventually gets to decide what is to be or not to be applied for all? This is not a good precedent to set.
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.
