True or False: Allowing gay marriage will lead to greater acceptance and tolerance for gays
- Thread starter glenn1
- Start date
neither / I think the repeal of DOMA is probably more important than ending DADT and individual marriage battles / neither
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
You cannot legislate people's opinions. So no. People who are against will still be against it whether its legal or not.
n yusef
Platinum Member
- Feb 20, 2005
- 2,158
- 1
- 0
You may not be able to legislate opinions, but policy can determine which opinions it is socially permissible to have. Anti-racist policy did not end racism, but the message that "racism is bad," from the government and from media made it less acceptable to be racist. Decreased acceptance of racism helped to fight racism, and decreased acceptance of homophobia is needed to fight homophobia.
As long as it is legally acceptable to fire someone because they are gay, it will be socially acceptable. I am not saying that policy change will create social change, only that it is a necessary step in the progress of society.
All over the country, people are realizing that civil rights are not a zero-sum game. Restricting the rights of homosexuals does not give heterosexuals more rights. Granting rights to homosexuals does not restrict the rights of heterosexuals. The fear of loss-of-privilege is inherent in all positions against social justice. Only the granting of rights to the marginalized group proves this fear unfounded.
The current generation of bigots may or may not change their views, but the young people today, and those to come will be raised with the images shown to them by the government and media. Anti-homosexual policy is an enemy of progress.
:laugh:what about having something like civil union for gays with exactly the same right as married couple.
To me, marriage is between a man and a women, with the ability to form a traditional family of parents and children.
Political agenda for gay couple to be "married" is like women asking to be called men and said yeah we have achived equality. The true equality should be the rights given, not the name itself.
I heard tonight that at the time of the Supreme Court overturning all bans on interracial marriage, that public opinion was 70% in favor of allowing the bans.
Public opinion frequently follows and lags legal changes. Quite a few legal changes have been 'shocking' and unpopular, and then accepted as clearly right.
The key is "To me,". Why should one's interpretation of what marriage means limit others who don't buy that view? To a gay person, marriage is between two people. You dont have to have children to be a "family." But if they wish to have children, there are options. Or do you feel it is only a real family if the mother is the one that carried the child?
Personally, I cant see how letting gay people marry is going to hurt me or affect my marriage. Let them do it..
Because that's democracy. We're not planning to let 4 year olds marry, to let people in comas marry, to allow explicitly financial marriages to get green cards marry.
We all have our opinions and those opinions are relevant. It's not reasonable to just say 'there can be no standards', however appealing that is to prevent bigotry in one case.
The battle that needs to be won is to convince people why banning gay marriage is wrong.
And when constitutions have protections for equality, they should be applied.
Which specific rights are you being denied that are preventing you from happiness? Why is it that you want equal recognition compared to a marriage between a man and a woman? Specifically. I only ever hear the argument about "equality" and nothing deeper. Men and woman are different. We can treat them all the same to an extent. But there comes that point where you just have to accept that they are different. :roll:
Why do we separate people into age groups? 0-17, 18-64 & 65+. If the only concern here is equal rights, then a 2 year old should be able to drink vodka, sign contracts, and have sex with a 40 year old. The point there is that we all agree that all people should not be treated equally.
A man and a woman can biologically reproduce with each other. A gay couple can not. That makes you different. Nothing you can say will ever change the fact that a gay couple cannot biologically reproduce with each other. So get down to specifics. Which rights do you want? Then I can go through them one by one and give an opinion. But to call you 100% equal? You're not. You can't be. And if you want to hate something, direct your hate against the real enemy, biology.
dahunan
Lifer
- Jan 10, 2002
- 18,191
- 3
- 0
ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED or do you just not use your brain?
Maybe before you run your cocksucking jibs you can research the differences... and unethical a "civil-union" is...
Its ok if you wish to remain a stupid redneck in your thinking .. concerning this topic
Tell us ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL... how does gay marriage hurt all those godfreak marriages... they = govt intervention and the worthless fucks still get divorced at a higher rate than gay couples.. AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
God intended marriage to be between two beings that love each other and nothing more.. You gay haters are nothing but pathetic whiners who need a court system to keep you from fucking your neighbors
I think that civil unions are the most appropriate solution and agree that the term marriage should be reserved for heterosexual unions.
I also think that homosexuals should have put more effort in pushing the 'openly serve in the military' agenda, instead of this. I was listening to NPR and a homosexual rights activist was concerned that there was going to be too much back lash from the gay marriage issue and make it more difficult to further other agendas.
I've served in the military with gays and I thought that the military would have been a lesser organization without those people, had they not served. I could support openly gay troops entering the military. I feel the gay marriage issue is being crammed down my throat, though. No pun intended. But that was pretty funny!
there was a study done in NJ recently that found pretty conclusively that civil unions are not on par with marriages in terms of rights
Title: True or False: Allowing gay marriage will lead to greater acceptance and tolerance for gays ?
In the short-term I wouldn't think so. Who knows in the long-term ???
It may lead to further acceptance, or it may further polarize the knuckle draggers.
The concept of "man-woman-children = family" is outdated, anyway. More likely one person will be divorced, both biological parents will not be in the house, there may be custodial weirdness, etc ...
In the short-term I wouldn't think so. Who knows in the long-term ???
It may lead to further acceptance, or it may further polarize the knuckle draggers.
The concept of "man-woman-children = family" is outdated, anyway. More likely one person will be divorced, both biological parents will not be in the house, there may be custodial weirdness, etc ...
TRENDING THREADS
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 262
-
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