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.
How are they different? Both gay marriage and interracial marriage bans are intended to prevent people from marrying who they love. Both bans are justified primarily by religion.
O.K. Then I guess NAMBLA is legitimate cause on par with LGBT issues. "How is it different?"
There isn't any such thing as "gay marriage" (or it happens so rarely as to be non-existent), while there is such a thing as inter-racial marriage.
In either case, the government should not be in the marriage business in the first place, because it is apparently either unwilling or unable to articulate a compelling federal interest in it (depending on what time period you look at). The Bush administration did, the Obama administration did not.
I would suggest that no progressive or liberal administration will ever articulate a compelling state interest in marriage...they just view it as a political and social tool to beat their opponents with.
Same thing with the judiciary. Their decisions on marriage have been informed 100% by social activism, not by any obligation to fairly assess the Constitutional aspects of the law.
There isn't any such thing as "gay marriage" (or it happens so rarely as to be non-existent), while there is such a thing as inter-racial marriage.
In either case, the government should not be in the marriage business in the first place, because it is apparently either unwilling or unable to articulate a compelling federal interest in it (depending on what time period you look at). The Bush administration did, the Obama administration did not.
I would suggest that no progressive or liberal administration will ever articulate a compelling state interest in marriage...they just view it as a political and social tool to beat their opponents with.
Same thing with the judiciary. Their decisions on marriage have been informed 100% by social activism, not by any obligation to fairly assess the Constitutional aspects of the law.
Not to mention homosexuality is in fact natural across species that have sex.
Natural isn't the same thing as normal.
Its isn't a model for society, or shouldn't be....unless its specifically as an adaptation to purge defective genes, in which case such an adaptation would be stymied by things like assisted reproduction.
Because otherwise it merely diminishes the species' ability to propagate itself. Again, if this is a genetic defect that serves as an adaptation, such as a response to environmental pressures that make a large or growing population a threat, then that's again, a different case.
However, there is zero evidence in any species in which homosexual behaviors have been observed that any of these things were the case.
So you agree that pedophilia is not comparable to homosexuality?
Ok, then please don't compare blacks to gays, and interracial marriage to gay marriage. That was used by LGBTs to legitimize their lifestyle, but gay marriage actually has nothing to do with interracial marriage.
Oh the gay "lifestyle" that I suppose can be cured with a little prayer and voodoo therapy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tritone
O.K. Then I guess NAMBLA is legitimate cause on par with LGBT issues. "How is it different?"
LGBTP!
I'd be more worried about your pastor or your local anti-gay GOP congressperson abusing children than gay people. Statistics speak for themselves. For one reason or another pedophilia thrives in hyperconservative, sexually-repressive religious sects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefragile
Yes, there is such a thing as gay marriage.
Not in the minds of the right-wing evangelicals and they believe they get to define reality and impose that on everyone else.
Any single, sound minded adult should be allowed to marry the same situation willing partner of their choice.
If you are going to require working adults to pay income tax, then no taxation without representation.
U.S. citizens and taxpayers should have the right to marry the willing adult of their choice, period.
That’s a nonsequitor and has nothing to do with marriage. We have representation and when those representatives decide things you don’t like you still have to accept it. Btw if you are not married then you don’t need to pay the marriage tax penalty so there’s that .....look on the bright side
Is there a reason you're being deliberately obtuse?
Is there a reason you don’t know what the term “marriage” means?
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.
