People who make the traditional argument are met with arguments on interracial marriage, civil rights, etc. I think to a lot of people, especially religious ones, it comes down to choice. You can choose to marry a woman. You might not be very happy if you were born gay, though.
With that said, what two people do in their private lives is no business of the state.
Such civil rights movements in the US are pretty abrupt. If one thinks about how Europeans have dominated Africa for centuries and over a course of about 100 years, slavery was abolished and people were eventually given "equal rights" as defined by the courts. Did that make racism go away? I'll leave that for y'all to decide, my guess would be no. The policies such as affirmative action which seeks to promote equality has been an utter failure to help underrepresented groups move out of poverty.
You see the same thing with abortion and Roe v Wade. From Wikipedia:
Jeffrey Rosen[38] and Michael Kinsley[39] echo Ginsburg, arguing that a democratic movement would have been the correct way to build a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights.
Why does all of this matter? My point is that social change needs to come gradually for it to be widely accepted. The civil rights movement/abortion example was my argument against radical change forced down by the courts. I think if politics were less polarized, people could reach consensus and make changes as they see fit. Stuff like marriage, like some have said, has been more or less defined over the course of our history (not anybody elses' but ours). As homosexuality becomes more socially acceptable, things will change.
The whole instant gratification mentality of America propagates into every aspect of our lives, be it financial (spending tomorrow's money with credit cards), political (wanting more services but less tax), social (wanting things changed immediately just because you think it's right). No wonder people who don't agree with you are pissed off and this is precisely why our government is so ineffective in addressing the problems facing our country.
For the record I didn't vote for or against CA's prop 8. See the comment about radical change that so many liberals advocate. When the time is right the society will change, and hopefully with a lot less people pissed off.
With that said, what two people do in their private lives is no business of the state.
Such civil rights movements in the US are pretty abrupt. If one thinks about how Europeans have dominated Africa for centuries and over a course of about 100 years, slavery was abolished and people were eventually given "equal rights" as defined by the courts. Did that make racism go away? I'll leave that for y'all to decide, my guess would be no. The policies such as affirmative action which seeks to promote equality has been an utter failure to help underrepresented groups move out of poverty.
You see the same thing with abortion and Roe v Wade. From Wikipedia:
Jeffrey Rosen[38] and Michael Kinsley[39] echo Ginsburg, arguing that a democratic movement would have been the correct way to build a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights.
Why does all of this matter? My point is that social change needs to come gradually for it to be widely accepted. The civil rights movement/abortion example was my argument against radical change forced down by the courts. I think if politics were less polarized, people could reach consensus and make changes as they see fit. Stuff like marriage, like some have said, has been more or less defined over the course of our history (not anybody elses' but ours). As homosexuality becomes more socially acceptable, things will change.
The whole instant gratification mentality of America propagates into every aspect of our lives, be it financial (spending tomorrow's money with credit cards), political (wanting more services but less tax), social (wanting things changed immediately just because you think it's right). No wonder people who don't agree with you are pissed off and this is precisely why our government is so ineffective in addressing the problems facing our country.
For the record I didn't vote for or against CA's prop 8. See the comment about radical change that so many liberals advocate. When the time is right the society will change, and hopefully with a lot less people pissed off.
The legally binding relationship between consenting competent adults should be recognized without exception. Many like to say" what about children, animals, etc." Well they fail the definition, a child(as determined by the state) cannot consent, whether it be to marriage or any other legal contract, nor could an animal.
Currently anyone can enter into a contract to allow inheritance of assets, legally binding duties, and responsibilities. The difference is that the state offers no additional protections nor mandates that your employer, insurance co., etc offer protections.
It doesn't matter what you call it. All individuals are entitled to the same protections under the law, and that includes protecting partners in a domestic relationship. The financial problem with polygamy is how many individuals can get coverage for the same price as child and 2 parents.
Currently anyone can enter into a contract to allow inheritance of assets, legally binding duties, and responsibilities. The difference is that the state offers no additional protections nor mandates that your employer, insurance co., etc offer protections.
It doesn't matter what you call it. All individuals are entitled to the same protections under the law, and that includes protecting partners in a domestic relationship. The financial problem with polygamy is how many individuals can get coverage for the same price as child and 2 parents.
So people should be treated as less then human simply because its an inconvenience to you. Sure, the Civil Rights act didn't end racism, but it definitely helped push it to the fringe and make racism seen as something bad, instead of normal. Who cares about pissing off bigots, fuck them, if they resist and stir up trouble, we have police around to shoot tear gas at them.
dainthomas
Lifer
- Dec 7, 2004
- 14,922
- 3,901
- 136
This sums up my feelings. If they hate people being free, then we should let them all move to Idaho or Montana and start their own ideologically pure Christian theocracy.
I don't feel like something PC like denying the use of the term "marriage" to describe homosexual partnership is "treating gay people as less then human". I think more practical issues that has less resistance such as, say, visitation rights, can be addressed first before gay "marriage" is tackled.
Gay marriage is one of those issues that I don't see it as black and white. Just because someone doesn't support it doesn't make them a bigot.
I'm more worried about gay people getting lynched for being gay than for some lame PC "marriage" term that you all are so adamant on granting to everybody even though marriage failure rate is 50+% in this country
Obviously you all think gay marriage is SUCH an important issue to deal with when our nation is being saddled with debt caused by both Democratic and Republican governments.
Fixed it and a reminder that Cultural mores are not dropped at a border like a discarded backpack. Hell, even the natives cheated to win.Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
YES!! I am aware of that and thats why I responded like I did.
Of course if GoPackGo wants to be a part of those cultures nothing is stopping him from moving.
The people from those countries who do live in America abide by rules of their choosing regardless of local civil regulations.
Any suggestion otherwise is disingenuous or incredibly naive.
For proof, one simply needs to re- watch "Gangs of New York" and research the truth behind the screenplay.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
Originally posted by: AlienCraft
Fixed it and a reminder that Cultural mores are not dropped at a border like a discarded backpack. Hell, even the natives cheated to win.Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
YES!! I am aware of that and thats why I responded like I did.
Of course if GoPackGo wants to be a part of those cultures nothing is stopping him from moving.
The people from those countries who do live in America abide by rules of their choosing regardless of local civil regulations.
Any suggestion otherwise is disingenuous or incredibly naive.
For proof, one simply needs to re- watch "Gangs of New York" and research the truth behind the screenplay.
actually culture is a very important part of the greatness of our country.
But thye fact is that cultural mores that go against the laws of the United States almost always are dropped at the broder...unless of course you are talkingt about cultural mores that even in the native country would be illegal also.
So nice try but you still have no clue!
Citing a movie that was just that a movie as being the 100% truth..lolol
I heard there were people wanting to marry inatimate objects as well, lets fuzzy it up some more!
TRENDING THREADS
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 230
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter