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.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,027,552 times
Reputation: 36027
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roaddog
I'm so sure the gays have suffered as the blacks have, such a sad comparison when the gays consider themselves as a race of oppressed people. You haven't suffered one thing the blacks have.
Exactly. If they never disclose their sexual preferences, they would not face any of this so-called "discrimination." A black person cannot hide the color of his/her skin so we are comparing apples and oranges here.
i respect peoples rights if gays are 10% of population then appropriate for some accomodation.
but certainly acts of violence against christian churches and members does not help to bring the public support so badly wanted.
my point is that Charol seemed to be saying that gay marriage is a civil right, and no civil right should be left up to a vote.. but then who decides??? a court? in Canada the SUpreme Court decides and they vote and whcihever ahs the majoirty obviously wins..
So id jsut like to know who charol believes should decide rights??? because rights are not a 100% thinkg, they are an opinion
Em, how is "Gay marriage" a civil right? Heterosexual marriage is not a civil right either. Sure, people have a right to form relationships (as already stipulated by the California Supreme Court), but is there really a right to have such relationships defined as "marriage"?.
Seems to me what gay activists need to do is to challenge the individual laws that unfairly discriminate against gay relationships rather than engage in this divisive crusade to redefine "marriage". Just what is it about that appellation that makes it "superior" to a "civil union"? I don't get it, sorry.
A few intellectual elites sitting on a bench in a distant place from most America were commissioned for their job by the Founding Fathers because the people do not always do what is right and altruistic. A few intellectual elites sitting on a bench in a distant place from most of America had to overturn popular opinion on many a civil rights issue. A few intellectual elites sitting on a bench in a distant place from most of America are the last firewall between Liberal Democracy and mob rule.
If there's one thing I've learned from this entire debate, it's that many Americans need to go back to civics class before they start blathering on about concepts they can't even wrap their minds around.
Appointed by one of our wonderfully squeaky clean presidents and confirmed by our squeaky clean senate. I'm emboldened with confidence in their choices aren't you?
Last edited by BigJon3475; 11-22-2008 at 05:29 PM..
Appointed by one of our wonderfully squeaky clean presidents and confirmed by our squeaky clean senate. I'm emboldened with confidence in their choices aren't you?
If you don't like our system of checks and balances, I suggest you propose a better way to ensure democracy yet protect the rights of every citizen.
Exactly. If they never disclose their sexual preferences, they would not face any of this so-called "discrimination." A black person cannot hide the color of his/her skin so we are comparing apples and oranges here.
Many people cannot hide their sexuality, no matter how hard they might try. Just ask my roommate, who was pegged as a f-g by age four... or my friend who was called "fairy boy" in elementary school, before he even knew what gay meant.
Exactly. If they never disclose their sexual preferences, they would not face any of this so-called "discrimination." A black person cannot hide the color of his/her skin so we are comparing apples and oranges here.
I'm astonished by your comments, although by now, I shouldn't be.
So-called discrimination? So, you're essentially saying that gays don't really face discrimination in this country - it's in their minds - yet you also said earlier tonight that you've felt discrimination as a white woman.
If your comments weren't so pathetic, I would laugh.
Even if a gay person does not talk about his sexual orientation, I guess you expect that person to not talk about his boyfriend, or her girlfriend, or wear a wedding/commitment ring. And if the individual works in an office, you believe that they not put up pictures of their partners on the walls, or on their desks. You expect that person to not talk about who he went on vacation with, or who he's meeting for lunch. I could go on, but most people readers get my point.
I can understand why some hetero men have trouble with male homosexuals, but I find it particularly disgusting to read homophobic remarks from a woman. Luckily, there are relatively few of you.
By the way, you still insist on calling it "sexual preference" rather than sexual orientation, which indicates to me that you still believe it's a choice. How sad for you.
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.
