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.
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." [b]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.
The will of the people in this case = a tyranny of the majority. You could probably get interracial marriage banned in the red south if you put it to a vote. Some things aren't meant for the people to decide.
Nothing you listed shows how "completely different" the two situations are. Discrimination can take on many forms, it's still discrimination. The fact that many in the LBGT community tend to hide their sexuality until well into adulthood should clue you in on the "equal status" they've enjoyed throughout history.
What does thr percentage of population have to do with anything?
Sure, attitudes do come out. But that doesn't mean I want to cause harm to a gay person--or anybody else.
Define what you mean by harm. I challenge you to do this because many people who hold bigoted values refuse to acknowledge the harm that their bigotry causes, instead insisting that the only harm that exists is that which leave marks on bodies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathy4017
Just because I'm not in favor of gay marriage doesn't mean I'm going to barge in and disrupt the festivities.
Will you support leaders with policies that get in the way of gay couples adopting children just like heterosexual couples? Will you support leaders with policies that will obstruct gay partners' primacy in next of kin situations like heterosexual partners? Both are harms promulgated by the bigotry against same-sex couples.
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.
No, about 4 percent of people "identify" as being gay. Given the attitude of certain areas of this country it's not inconceivable to believe that a percentage isn't telling the truth and it's a bit higher. While it might not be the much cited 10 percent, it's obviously higher than your estimation. It is a civil rights issue actually. Just because the situation of gay people isn't as bad as it was for black people during the 1960's doesn't mean it's not still the civil rights of the modern area.
No, about 4 percent of people "identify" as being gay. Given the attitude of certain areas of this country it's not inconceivable to believe that a percentage isn't telling the truth and it's a bit higher. While it might not be the much cited 10 percent, it's obviously higher than your estimation. It is a civil rights issue actually. Just because the situation of gay people isn't as bad as it was for black people during the 1960's doesn't mean it's not still the civil rights of the modern area.
Considering how many married, 'straight', DL, etc men that exist here, I've come to the assumption virtually every man is gay or bi.
The constitution gave states all rights of governing not expressly given in it to federal government. That is why states still control marriage. You don't get a marriage license from federal government. All supreme court did was refuse to rule on a lower courts ruling. We have seen decades of ruling and appeals plus laws re-written on Abortion and death penalties as example. On those the supreme court actually ruled ;so this is long from settled law. There is no federal law allowing gay marriages at all and unlikely to be.
Those 1049 FEDERAL rights that come with marriage are granted by the federal government, not the states, it was the federal government that stopped all bans on interracial marriage, at the time of Loving verses the state of Virginia in 1967, there were 17 states with bans still on their books. As with same sex marriage, it took years for the states to one by one, abolish those bans. But it was the final decision made by that case that resolved the issue. And it was not by popular vote that interracial marriage bans were dissolved, in 1967 close to 70% of the US populaton was against interracial marriage. Does not matter, no minority shall have its rights abridged by the majority and why are gays subject to this discrimination, yet not a minute minority race, or the disabled even or some other category? Why this legal discrimination against just gays?
The constitution gave states all rights of governing not expressly given in it to federal government. That is why states still control marriage. You don't get a marriage license from federal government. All supreme court did was refuse to rule on a lower courts ruling. We have seen decades of ruling and appeals plus laws re-written on Abortion and death penalties as example. On those the supreme court actually ruled ;so this is long from settled law. There is no federal law allowing gay marriages at all and unlikely to be.
It also states that they cannot discriminate just because they have the right to set policy in certain areas. No one. The 10 amendment is not greater than all the rest.
Sure, attitudes do come out. But that doesn't mean I want to cause harm to a gay person--or anybody else.
Just because I'm not in favor of gay marriage doesn't mean I'm going to barge in and disrupt the festivities.
Cathy, what do you have against same sex marriage? What do you have against my spouse and I being legally married and granted those 1049 right from the government, rights that you got when you got a federal civil marriage license? My spouse and I have been together since 1979, though we do not have children, why should we be denied those federal rights? Children are not required of any marriage, so it cannot be about children and anyone that says that it insures that children have a mom and dad. How does banning same sex marriage insure that children have a mom and dad? That is only one excuse that I have heard, there are many reasons that people come up with to justify denying us rights they themselves enjoy, but the mom and dad one makes no sense. Unless it keeps Paul from divorcing Victoria now that he can marry his "buddy" Dave because it is legal.
Given the advent of the Internet and 24-hour cable news, it's more pervasive now.
Too bad for me? Doesn't matter whether I approve or not. But I am entitled to my opinion, just as you are.
Am I entitled to an opinion about your marriage and legality? Why should you be concerned with anyones marriage, even mine? I do agree that it is more pervasive, but everything now is more pervasive and intrusive. I lived in the woods without TV for nine years and when I moved back to city life with cable and the internet, I felt overwhelmed, I was hearing swear words on TV that the last time I had truly watched cable TV, it was bleeped. That was 15 years ago for my reality shock and the internet and media is even more in ones face now, especially with ipads and iPhones being common. Everywhere I go, someone is connected to their phones or pads, but seldom communicating face to face.
I have posted this before, The Gay community have sued their way to the top for the Title " Marriage" . I agree with Cathy that it should be label as a Civil Union since Marriage traditional One Man and One Women.
In the work place there are all ready protection in place to protect peoples right. I do not what the big difference if you are gay and or have been discriminated due your color. There are measures in place.
What we are really speaking is equal protection under the law. However Christians may have to respect the law a judge and a result of a law suit. But we don not have to accept in the Life of Christ.
Your life of christ has nothing to do with law and I do not care what your religion thinks for it matters not to law. For equal protection under the law, gays should be allowed to marry the one they love and be granted the same marriage rights and all that goes with it, no less, no more. The church does not own civil marriage, the federal government controls it.
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.
