Originally posted by: Viper GTS
I'd rather not be grouped with SF & NY.
:Q
Viper GTS
Huh? Since when did this issue become like the Black Civil Right Movement of the 60s? Were entire families of gay people enslaved in the past? Forced to live in ghettos or as indigent sharecroppers? No.Originally posted by: gopunk
huh?Originally posted by: Vic
Since when did sexuality = race ?
Originally posted by: Vic
Huh? Since when did this issue become like the Black Civil Right Movement of the 60s? Were entire families of gay people enslaved in the past? Forced to live in ghettos or as indigent sharecroppers? No.Originally posted by: gopunk
huh?Originally posted by: Vic
Since when did sexuality = race ?
That's entirely not my point. Please don't try to confuse the issue. Of course black people should have complete equal rights, and of course it should be that way because they are indeed equal.Originally posted by: gopunk
i don't really see how those differences are relevant, black people should have equal rights as everyone else, regardless of whether or not their families were enslaved or forced to be sharecroppers. black people should have equal rights because they are no less human than the rest of us, not as a reparation.Originally posted by: Vic
Huh? Since when did this issue become like the Black Civil Right Movement of the 60s? Were entire families of gay people enslaved in the past? Forced to live in ghettos or as indigent sharecroppers? No.Originally posted by: gopunk
huh?Originally posted by: Vic
Since when did sexuality = race ?
Originally posted by: Vic
That's entirely not my point. Please don't try to confuse the issue. Of course black people should have complete equal rights, and of course it should be that way because they are indeed equal.Originally posted by: gopunk
i don't really see how those differences are relevant, black people should have equal rights as everyone else, regardless of whether or not their families were enslaved or forced to be sharecroppers. black people should have equal rights because they are no less human than the rest of us, not as a reparation.Originally posted by: Vic
Huh? Since when did this issue become like the Black Civil Right Movement of the 60s? Were entire families of gay people enslaved in the past? Forced to live in ghettos or as indigent sharecroppers? No.Originally posted by: gopunk
huh?Originally posted by: Vic
Since when did sexuality = race ?
My point is that sexuality is not the same as race. Being born gay is NOT the same as being born black. This is NOT the Civil Rights Movement re-visited. I am merely mentioning this because of some comments posted in this thread.
I don't even think that's the issue..Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: Vic
Huh? Since when did this issue become like the Black Civil Right Movement of the 60s? Were entire families of gay people enslaved in the past? Forced to live in ghettos or as indigent sharecroppers? No.Originally posted by: gopunk
huh?Originally posted by: Vic
Since when did sexuality = race ?
i don't really see how those differences are relevant, black people should have equal rights as everyone else, regardless of whether or not their families were enslaved or forced to be sharecroppers. black people should have equal rights because they are no less human than the rest of us, not as a reparation.
How is this not an issue of civil rights and discrimination? That argument, though likely tongue-in-cheek is absolutely ridiculous. Try looking at it from a different perspective. Can every gay and straight prerson marry the one they love and want to spend the rest of their life with? No?That's horrible reasoning. They are a very small minority, and it's not equal rights they are going - it's a change in rights. Every gay guy and lesbian has the equal right of marrying someone of the opposite sex.
Originally posted by: KnightBreed
The very definition of marriage was put forth by religious beliefs of the public - the very same public that fought tooth-and-nail to separate church from state. The recommendation that we remove all references to "marriage" out of our lawbooks sounds like the best solution to both sides of argument. Leave the question of marriage up to the religions of the involved parties. The government's responsibility should be to dish out civil union licenses to any couple that wishes to reap any benefits included in this union.
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: KnightBreed
The very definition of marriage was put forth by religious beliefs of the public - the very same public that fought tooth-and-nail to separate church from state. The recommendation that we remove all references to "marriage" out of our lawbooks sounds like the best solution to both sides of argument. Leave the question of marriage up to the religions of the involved parties. The government's responsibility should be to dish out civil union licenses to any couple that wishes to reap any benefits included in this union.
i have this to add... marriage was most likely secular in its origins (some tribe or something probably). the reason many people view marriage as a religious issue today is because it was made one by the church back in the dark ages, when the church had judicial authority. in other words, marriage only became religious because the church was part of the government. since the church is not part of the government anymore, i don't think it is a huge stretch to allow marriage to take on a non-religious meaning again.
Sorry, Eli, but black people were discriminated not just because they were (are) different, but because they are an entirely different race and culture. They were considered sub-human, discriminated against and enslaved from birth, for nothing more than just having the skin color they were born with.Originally posted by: Eli
I don't even think that's the issue..
It's just a fair analogy. Black people were repressed in society because they were different.
Gay people are currently repressed in society because they are different.
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: KnightBreed
The very definition of marriage was put forth by religious beliefs of the public - the very same public that fought tooth-and-nail to separate church from state. The recommendation that we remove all references to "marriage" out of our lawbooks sounds like the best solution to both sides of argument. Leave the question of marriage up to the religions of the involved parties. The government's responsibility should be to dish out civil union licenses to any couple that wishes to reap any benefits included in this union.
i have this to add... marriage was most likely secular in its origins (some tribe or something probably). the reason many people view marriage as a religious issue today is because it was made one by the church back in the dark ages, when the church had judicial authority. in other words, marriage only became religious because the church was part of the government. since the church is not part of the government anymore, i don't think it is a huge stretch to allow marriage to take on a non-religious meaning again.
Right but what does that have to do with US history?? we are still talking specifically about the US right?
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
If they want it they should go about getting the laws changed.
I'm not going to touch the issue of morality, but legality is pretty clear.
I'd rather not be grouped with SF & NY.
:Q
Viper GTS
gopunk, marriage began as a religious institution from before the beginning of human history, and always has been through all human history. The tribal shaman was always the religious leader, the chief its secular leader. The shaman controlled marriage. As civilization evolved, marriage was always contained within religion, regardless of name or form.
Yes, certainly. But don't gay people have an entirely different culture? I know, I know... but it still boils down to discrimination.Originally posted by: Vic
Sorry, Eli, but black people were discriminated not just because they were (are) different, but because they are an entirely different race and culture. They were considered sub-human, discriminated against and enslaved from birth, for nothing more than just having the skin color they were born with.Originally posted by: Eli
I don't even think that's the issue..
It's just a fair analogy. Black people were repressed in society because they were different.
Gay people are currently repressed in society because they are different.
Sexuality is not the same thing. While someone may (or may not, but that's another argument) be born with a sexual preference, actually being one sexuality or the other requires conscience choice and action. In other words, in order to have sexuality, one must first have sex.
This make the 2 issues very, very different. Hopefully, you can use common sense and see it, as I really don't want to go into how being black is a dominant genetic gene and how homosexuality is a contra-survivalistic mutation.
This is not to say that I am in some way anti-homosexual. Quite the contrary. Heaven forbid though, if I don't come across as PC here. I have a genuine concern that the homosexuals are moving too far too fast, that they seem to enjoy crunching on relgious toes (and marriage was originally a religious institution, not a government one), and that I fear they will face a backlash if they continue on this path. History does not disagree with me IMO.
Originally posted by: Eli
Wow, people are seriously freaking out over this...
Just walked by the TV, my dad is watching CNN I think... They have some official on that just said, "If we do not ammend the constitution to ban gay marriages immediately, they will spread across the nation like wildfire!"
Fscking disgusting! :|