Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I agree. And that is my whole point. This is not a struggle for rights. It is nothing more than a very well-funded campaign by one special interest group who wants to be included in something that has always been exclusive.
Oh, and by the way, my daughter is an adult and we also love each other and I would like nothing more than to be able to cash-in on all the benefits her and I are apparently missing because we are not married. And, if you think there is something wrong with this, it is you who feel this is an issue about sex. Not me.
Also, I am trying very hard to be fair and open-minded in this discussion. I have no beef with anyone. Live and let live is my policy. So when I mention sordid things in my post, by all means point it out to me. So please show me where I have done that and I will correct it.
That said, when I see a scam, I call it a scam. This is not fight for equal or universal rights because it does not include anyone else except gay people.
Sorry, but thats just the way I see it.
It's wrong to exclude them, and I think that somewhere in the depths of your Wisdom, you understand that it's wrong.
You're arguing from the basis of: but it's the law.
The whole argument is to change the Law. "But its the law" is not an argument for keeping the Law, but simply an obtuse statement of fact.
We're asking for your blatant opinion why Gays should be excluded from being married - not your opinion of "but but then slippery slope," or anything else. There's valid arguments to be made for and against Incest marriage, but that's not the topic of discussion.
If you want to change the law, change the law.
Personally, I could care less who gets to marry who.
My main objection is with the use of all the flowery language about the struggle for a so-called universal right when, in reality, the whole issue revolves around only one special interest group wanting to be included in something that almost everyone else is excluded from in one way or another.
I guess it has to be packaged this way if you want people to buy it. But don't kid yourself about this being some kind of fight for universal rights for everyone because it's not.
Michael Steele Says Gay Rights And Black Rights Not The Same | News One
Steele occasionally gets it right.
I think you are assuming marriage is a right under the federal constitution and I dont believe that has been decided yet. And, since you need a license to get married (similar to driving); I see no problem with keeping exclusions in the pact.
Also, the left seems to want to claim the moral high ground by using the rights argument in this issue but, lets face it, nobody is campaigning for "Rights for all of us" or everyones right to marry anyone they choose. Nope, as far as I can tell, all we have is one very well-funded special interest group seeking inclusion in something that has always been exclusive.
And I see plenty of hate from both sides on this issue.
You have to have a legal reason to exclude. For driving they exclude blind folk.
What legal reason is there to exclude gay folk?
None, as the Constitution does not address it.
You can not just make it up as you go.
The legal reason would be that, legally, marriage is an exclusive contract between a man and a woman.
Michael Steele Says Gay Rights And Black Rights Not The Same | News One
Steele occasionally gets it right.
Civil rights are civil rights regardless of it's based on race, gender, age, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, handicap, etc.
When one is discriminated against, we all are lessened.
But....there were many in the Civil Rights movement who didn't think equality applied to women either. It's just what happens with narrow minded people.
Michael Steele Says Gay Rights And Black Rights Not The Same | News One
Steele occasionally gets it right.
Civil rights are civil rights regardless of it's based on race, gender, age, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, handicap, etc.
When one is discriminated against, we all are lessened.
But....there were many in the Civil Rights movement who didn't think equality applied to women either. It's just what happens with narrow minded people.
that is true ...but you are a much sharper dudette than this, it appears you are being a bit obtuse.
when one says civil rights they think of the black experience for such in America. and in the end, the 'rights' being withheld vis a vis blacks and gays ala marriage are very far apart. IMHO, its denuding the term for and tro the black experience for which it stands as we apply it to the other.
in 3-4 years they can hold the same referendum again as in prop 8 and it will pass in a walk. forcing it, via judicial action which equals in many peoples minds extraordinary coercion, is a bad tactic. far better to let it settle which it will and reach natural consensus, as the numbers portray as the approval for such has gotten better and better as compared to say even 5 years ago.
Civil rights are civil rights regardless of it's based on race, gender, age, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, handicap, etc.
When one is discriminated against, we all are lessened.
But....there were many in the Civil Rights movement who didn't think equality applied to women either. It's just what happens with narrow minded people.
that is true ...but you are a much sharper dudette than this, it appears you are being a bit obtuse.
when one says civil rights they think of the black experience for such in America. and in the end, the 'rights' being withheld vis a vis blacks and gays ala marriage are very far apart. IMHO, its denuding the term for and tro the black experience for which it stands as we apply it to the other.
in 3-4 years they can hold the same referendum again as in prop 8 and it will pass in a walk. forcing it, via judicial action which equals in many peoples minds extraordinary coercion, is a bad tactic. far better to let it settle which it will and reach natural consensus, as the numbers portray as the approval for such has gotten better and better as compared to say even 5 years ago.
And if we had waited for public opinion when it came to interracial marriage, it would not have passed until the 1990s. It was "forced via judicial action" in the 60s.
that is true ...but you are a much sharper dudette than this, it appears you are being a bit obtuse.
when one says civil rights they think of the black experience for such in America. and in the end, the 'rights' being withheld vis a vis blacks and gays ala marriage are very far apart. IMHO, its denuding the term for and tro the black experience for which it stands as we apply it to the other.
in 3-4 years they can hold the same referendum again as in prop 8 and it will pass in a walk. forcing it, via judicial action which equals in many peoples minds extraordinary coercion, is a bad tactic. far better to let it settle which it will and reach natural consensus, as the numbers portray as the approval for such has gotten better and better as compared to say even 5 years ago.
And if we had waited for public opinion when it came to interracial marriage, it would not have passed until the 1990s. It was "forced via judicial action" in the 60s.
that goes to my remark ala "civil rights" and the black experience. this issue is relatively young and public opinion has been remarkably fungible. we both know that if they floated prop 8 again in 3 years it would not pass.
And if we had waited for public opinion when it came to interracial marriage, it would not have passed until the 1990s. It was "forced via judicial action" in the 60s.
that goes to my remark ala "civil rights" and the black experience. this issue is relatively young and public opinion has been remarkably fungible. we both know that if they floated prop 8 again in 3 years it would not pass.
It would not pass today. Gallup shows a majority of Americans supporting marriage equality nationwide, not just in CA. Completely moot because we shouldn't be voting on civil rights.
that goes to my remark ala "civil rights" and the black experience. this issue is relatively young and public opinion has been remarkably fungible. we both know that if they floated prop 8 again in 3 years it would not pass.
It would not pass today. Gallup shows a majority of Americans supporting marriage equality nationwide, not just in CA. Completely moot because we shouldn't be voting on civil rights.
sure , but you are speaking on a national level, we have to remember we are a republic, there fore the process vis a vis states means it must run its course.
Michael Steele Says Gay Rights And Black Rights Not The Same | News One
Steele occasionally gets it right.
The comparison that gets made is not that blacks are akin to gays in any way other than that both groups have a history of being discriminated against for reasons that are largely irrational, prejudiced, narrow-minded, unfair and illogical.
Was it unfair to treat black Americans as second class (inferior) individuals based on the happenstance of skin color? Obviously it was.
The comparison is the proposition that it is similarly unfair to treat gays as second class (inferior) individuals based on the happenstance of sexual orientation.
So, unless you happen to have some brilliant, insightful, not-previously-refuted "argument" to offer as to why it is allegedly NOT unfair to discriminate against gays, your OP -- like Steele's contention -- has no basis in logic, reason, fairness or rationality.
Michael Steele Says Gay Rights And Black Rights Not The Same | News One
Steele occasionally gets it right.
The comparison that gets made is not that blacks are akin to gays in any way other than that both groups have a history of being discriminated against for reasons that are largely irrational, prejudiced, narrow-minded, unfair and illogical.
Was it unfair to treat black Americans as second class (inferior) individuals based on the happenstance of skin color? Obviously it was.
The comparison is the proposition that it is similarly unfair to treat gays as second class (inferior) individuals based on the happenstance of sexual orientation.
So, unless you happen to have some brilliant, insightful, not-previously-refuted "argument" to offer as to why it is allegedly NOT unfair to discriminate against gays, your OP -- like Steele's contention -- has no basis in logic, reason, fairness or rationality.
The Discrimination Gays face/d was based on Exhibiting their Private Sexuality Publically...
Blacks could NEVER keep their Race Private, nor should they have been Expected to or Denied the Right to Couple and ProCreat with any other Race...
There is NO Analogy from Sexual Choices/Impulses and Race.
If Discrimination is what we are using as the Basis for OKing things then there are ALL kinds of People who are Discriminated Against, including Polygamists...
Because they Suffer Discrimination and Legal Recourse, they should be Viewed as Equal to Homosexuals in this Cause for Marriage "Rights", Correct?...
peace...
yeah. Gays have it so much easier.Maybe this image will help clear up the difference between the black struggle for equal rights in the US and gay "issues":
One runs a little deeper than the other.
IMHO
This is where they lynched Matthew Shepard
Is the problem that some Blacks (who are homophobes themselves) resent the notion that crimes can be committed in the name of bigotry against anyone other than one of their fellow Blacks? Isn't that rather petty? Is the victim card so precious that no other group can play it, even if it's truly justified?
It would not pass today. Gallup shows a majority of Americans supporting marriage equality nationwide, not just in CA. Completely moot because we shouldn't be voting on civil rights.
sure , but you are speaking on a national level, we have to remember we are a republic, there fore the process vis a vis states means it must run its course.
It is running its proper course...through the judicial system.
sure , but you are speaking on a national level, we have to remember we are a republic, there fore the process vis a vis states means it must run its course.
It is running its proper course...through the judicial system.
Oh I see...its always interesting when the ole flip flop occurs. its majority rule when it suites, then the courts when you need them if a referendum or the state legislature isn't amendable...how predictable. .....
If I had been oppressed and persecuted for any reason, no matter how large or small the scale, I woulc not care or object and embrace everyone and anyone that supported my cause.
Of course thare are many blacks that are royally pissed off that many supporters of gays and lesbians and the persecution they receive compare their journey to that of the civil rights movement.
Homophobia is common amongst all groups of folk.
The comparison that gets made is not that blacks are akin to gays in any way other than that both groups have a history of being discriminated against for reasons that are largely irrational, prejudiced, narrow-minded, unfair and illogical.
Was it unfair to treat black Americans as second class (inferior) individuals based on the happenstance of skin color? Obviously it was.
The comparison is the proposition that it is similarly unfair to treat gays as second class (inferior) individuals based on the happenstance of sexual orientation.
So, unless you happen to have some brilliant, insightful, not-previously-refuted "argument" to offer as to why it is allegedly NOT unfair to discriminate against gays, your OP -- like Steele's contention -- has no basis in logic, reason, fairness or rationality.
The Discrimination Gays face/d was based on Exhibiting their Private Sexuality Publically...
Blacks could NEVER keep their Race Private, nor should they have been Expected to or Denied the Right to Couple and ProCreat with any other Race...
There is NO Analogy from Sexual Choices/Impulses and Race.
If Discrimination is what we are using as the Basis for OKing things then there are ALL kinds of People who are Discriminated Against, including Polygamists...
Because they Suffer Discrimination and Legal Recourse, they should be Viewed as Equal to Homosexuals in this Cause for Marriage "Rights", Correct?...
peace...
I don't agree with your analysis, starting with my disagreement even with initial premise.
I think the laws used to discriminate against gays for perfectly private behavior.
In any event, it used to be the law (in many states) that a black person and a white person couldn't get married, either. That was strictly based on race. What possible interest the state might have in that realm was never really established.
I'd say the same is pretty much true now, with gays. I remain at a loss to understand how or why the state (any state) might think it has any valid concern with the gender of a the individuals getting married.
A loves B. B loves A. A proposes to B. B accepts A's proposal.
In the past and today, if A is a male white and B is a female white, they can get married.
In the past, if A was a white male and B were a black female, the could not legally get married.
In the present (in a number of states), if A is a male and B is a male, the couple cannot legally get married.
Since I don't give a damn if A marries B and the State cannot articulate one stinking coherent reason why the law should prevent them (strictly on the basis of their same-gender status) from getting married, I don't see how their situation is different than the status of a mixed-race couple in the days of the Miscegenation laws prohibiting cross-racial marriages.
My wife is a Catholic. I'm not. Oh oh. I sure hope the State doesn't come up with some law prohibiting such marriages. Cross-religious marriages are a valid concern of the State because -- ??? Cross-racial marriages are a valid concern of the State because -- ??? Same-gender marriages are a valid concern of the State because -- ???
Polygamy -- by stark contrast -- is a very real concern of the State for a whole number of valid state interests. Those have been and CAN BE articulated.
I'd love to hear a rational argument by which cross-racial marriages can be stopped as a matter of legitimate State interest. Similarly, I have YET to hear a legitimate valid argument for a State interest in the gender issue of marriage.
Marriage is a Product of ProCreative Coupling... Denying a Man and a Women from Marrying based on Race Defies our Natural Design.
The Discrimination Gays face/d was based on Exhibiting their Private Sexuality Publically...
Blacks could NEVER keep their Race Private, nor should they have been Expected to or Denied the Right to Couple and ProCreat with any other Race...
There is NO Analogy from Sexual Choices/Impulses and Race.
If Discrimination is what we are using as the Basis for OKing things then there are ALL kinds of People who are Discriminated Against, including Polygamists...
Because they Suffer Discrimination and Legal Recourse, they should be Viewed as Equal to Homosexuals in this Cause for Marriage "Rights", Correct?...
peace...
I don't agree with your analysis, starting with my disagreement even with initial premise.
I think the laws used to discriminate against gays for perfectly private behavior.
In any event, it used to be the law (in many states) that a black person and a white person couldn't get married, either. That was strictly based on race. What possible interest the state might have in that realm was never really established.
I'd say the same is pretty much true now, with gays. I remain at a loss to understand how or why the state (any state) might think it has any valid concern with the gender of a the individuals getting married.
A loves B. B loves A. A proposes to B. B accepts A's proposal.
In the past and today, if A is a male white and B is a female white, they can get married.
In the past, if A was a white male and B were a black female, the could not legally get married.
In the present (in a number of states), if A is a male and B is a male, the couple cannot legally get married.
Since I don't give a damn if A marries B and the State cannot articulate one stinking coherent reason why the law should prevent them (strictly on the basis of their same-gender status) from getting married, I don't see how their situation is different than the status of a mixed-race couple in the days of the Miscegenation laws prohibiting cross-racial marriages.
My wife is a Catholic. I'm not. Oh oh. I sure hope the State doesn't come up with some law prohibiting such marriages. Cross-religious marriages are a valid concern of the State because -- ??? Cross-racial marriages are a valid concern of the State because -- ??? Same-gender marriages are a valid concern of the State because -- ???
Polygamy -- by stark contrast -- is a very real concern of the State for a whole number of valid state interests. Those have been and CAN BE articulated.
I'd love to hear a rational argument by which cross-racial marriages can be stopped as a matter of legitimate State interest. Similarly, I have YET to hear a legitimate valid argument for a State interest in the gender issue of marriage.
Marriage is a Product of ProCreative Coupling... Denying a Man and a Women from Marrying based on Race Defies our Natural Design.
A Black Man and a White Woman can Physically Reflect Marriage.
If Marriage is whatever any given Adults say it is, then it has no Real Meaning and if it is Expanded as a "Right" that way, then Denying any Variation of Adult Marriage, be it 2 Sisters or whatever, would be Unconstitutional.
You can't Expand Rights to SOME Adults to the Exclusion of others.
peace...
