Tweet
I'd prefer Civil Unions, but I guess this is preferable to unequal laws. I worry though that this will cause a backlash though, when mainstream America sees the image coming out of San Fransisco and probably soon Massachusets. The more victories gays have won, the worse they do in the polls. It's looking more and more likely that we will get a constitutional amendment that will enshrine discrimination into the Constitution.
-
"I'm moving to the Left" - Lancer
"I imagine the neighbors on your right are estatic." - Slowwhand -
I strongly disagree. I think people are getting more open minded. Again I have not seen any poll done on this topic as of late. But I believe people are getting more and more open minded with time.Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
The more victories gays have won, the worse they do in the polls. It's looking more and more likely that we will get a constitutional amendment that will enshrine discrimination into the Constitution.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
At first thought, I supported this. Then, I thought about it a lot, and then I figured out that this is against the law, and thus opposed it. Then, I thought, this law itself is unconsititutional, and thus the law is against the law, and thus these people are breaking an illegal law. Thus I think they were in the right.
Comment
-
I expect a backlash. But I hope there will be a backlash against the backlash.Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
I'd prefer Civil Unions, but I guess this is preferable to unequal laws. I worry though that this will cause a backlash though, when mainstream America sees the image coming out of San Fransisco and probably soon Massachusets. The more victories gays have won, the worse they do in the polls. It's looking more and more likely that we will get a constitutional amendment that will enshrine discrimination into the Constitution.Comment
-
So why don't you start flogging yourself instead of ragging on homosexuals all the time.Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well, I think they are evil and bad, but no worse than anyone else.Rethink Refuse Reduce Reuse
Do It OurselvesComment
-
That not how your phrased it originally... you asked about second clas treatment, not laws. So all my points are still validOriginally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's not really the issue here. I wanted other examples of how homosexuals are treated by law as second-class citizens. None of your points stand to scrutiny.
No... I wouldn't force churches to marry them... just the government. But the fact remains, that churches treat them like second class citizens. Nothing you can say changes that fact.Would you force churches to marry two men to each other?
Again... now you bring up the "law" again and that wasn't your question. However, he fact that they can't get married is just one example of how the Law discriminates against them.Second class treatment already targetted by laws. Fez talks about steps. Steps to ensure equality. Now, if in law they are already accorded equal treatment, then this is a salient point.
the law doesn't stop the second class treatment... and since you keep bringing up the law, let me repeat that the laws on marriage are discriminatory... so in reality, and by law, the government is treating gays as second class citizens.Again, laws cannot prevent something from occurring, they can only deter. The fact that the state deters is a provision of equality. Another salient point.
What does having to prove a postitive benefit to "all" mariages have to do with this? You keep saying that it would HURT or have a negative effect on straight marriages...And what are those negative effect, and where is your proof. As stated before, any marriage that can be effected simply because some gay people that you don't even know get married is truely troubled already and has nothing really to do with gay marriages.No. I merely admit that not all problems with marriage can be traced to homosexuality.
All I can do is speculate on the effects of marriage, and frankly, all I see are negative effects. Can you show me a single positive benefit to all marriages by marrying homosexuals?
Gay people getting married has no effect on regular marriages... Your comments in other threads about lost benefits (which is a crock to begin with) doesn't hold water, because in your own words, it's ok if gays marry, but only if to members of the opposite sex... so the net effect of total marriages would remain the same...
So again... please tell us all how it has a negative effect, and supply proof to support your position. Feel free to finally admit that your whole point of view is solely based on religious reasons and nothing else.Keep on Civin'
RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron OComment
-
I get it now. We apparently only support violating the law when it makes us feel good. How far can we extend this rule?I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
Do you think it was ok to lock up Gandhi and MLK? Since they were evil criminals."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
So you think it was OK for the judge in Alabama to put the Ten Commandments on the Courthouse property?I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
No. I never said that any act of civil disobedience is ok.
And you didn't answer my question."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
I fail to see the substantive difference between this case and the question I asked, Ramo. After all they are both examples of "Good old civil disobedience."I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
I consider the state promoting religion wrong, and fighting for freedom and equality right. And you still didn't answer my question."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
The answer to your question is that if you are going to violate the law in order to push for what you consider to be a societal good be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions. Do I support people like MLK and Ghandi? Yes. Do I support governments that exceede the authority given to them in order to push a cause they consider fashionable? Absolutely not.I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
If there's no substantive difference between those two cases, there's no substantive difference between the actions of MLK and OBL. The only way in which they're similar is that were both illegal."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Is that a yes? You do support locking up Gandhi and MLK?The answer to your question is that if you are going to violate the law in order to push for what you consider to be a societal good be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions.
Well, what you so blithely dismiss as a fashion statement, I consider fighting a fundmental injustice in this country.Do I support governments that exceede the authority given to them in order to push a cause they consider fashionable? Absolutely not."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
Comment