In reality though, all that was enforced was white/black marriages. Also, being attracted to someone of the same gender is not the same thing as being attracted to someone of a different race. Primarily because "race" doesn't legitimately exist. We are genetically human...there is no sub-species.
LeBron James and Dwight Howard are next-generation human beings though.
Fan-boy.................
This is precisely why SSM should be allowed
In reality though, all that was enforced was white/black marriages. Also, being attracted to someone of the same gender is not the same thing as being attracted to someone of a different race. Primarily because "race" doesn't legitimately exist. We are genetically human...there is no sub-species.
Explain.......
LGBT people are not sub-human, and deserve to be treated equally.
In fairness, I don't think that mac meant "sub-human" when he said "subspecies"
Yeah, I agree. Though I'm not sure if different races could be classified as being a sub-species.
They can't. The genetic and biological differences between the different races doesn't even come close to being enough to classify them as separate subspecies. A better example would be Neanderthal.
In fairness, I don't think that mac meant "sub-human" when he said "subspecies"
In fairness, I don't think that mac meant "sub-human" when he said "subspecies"
LGBT people are not sub-human, and deserve to be treated equally.
Yeah, I agree. Though I'm not sure if different races could be classified as being a sub-species.
They can't. The genetic and biological differences between the different races doesn't even come close to being enough to classify them as separate subspecies. A better example would be Neanderthal.
True, but neither are the different genders in "subspecies" nor are people of differing sexualities in "subspecies".
I will agree that there are inherent differences in men and women, more probably than between a man of one race and a man of a different race, but that doesn't mean the differences are so vast that there being attracted to people of a certain race is much different than being attracted to people of a certain gender. Especially when there is no way a person can know beyond a shadow of a doubt with an initial attraction that the other person will be able to procreate with them.
(And I know your position on this, just trying to add to what I posted and your response seemed a good way to do it without having to edit my last post.)
Personally, I think the interracial marriage comparison is useful up to a point - the point being that marriage, and social norms in general, are constantly evolving.
That I agree with...if American society decides that is wishes to allow SSM, then it will regardless of any currently existing barrier.
Personally, I think the interracial marriage comparison is useful up to a point - the point being that marriage, and social norms in general, are constantly evolving.
That I agree with...if American society decides that is wishes to allow SSM, then it will regardless of any currently existing barrier.
Personally, I think the interracial marriage comparison is useful up to a point - the point being that marriage, and social norms in general, are constantly evolving.
It wasn't society that decided interracial marriage was okay though, it was the SCOTUS. And it will probably be the SCOTUS that strikes down SSM bans as well.
Rogue, I think this is a very interesting discussion. I took a Law and Society class this past semester that discussed whether the legal institutions are an agent of social control, or of social change.
I agree that on many social issues in the past few decades, SCOTUS has generally been ahead of the curve compared to the general public (for instance integration/desegregation, abortion, etc.)
However, if it weren't for groups of vocal citizens and their supporters, such cases would never even reach the courts in the first place. I agree that some changes don't happen until society permits them to. However, changes that do happen must have enough support to have some degree of impetus behind them.
Personally, I think the interracial marriage comparison is useful up to a point - the point being that marriage, and social norms in general, are constantly evolving.
I agree but for people that aren't aware when it was first passed in California and then Nation wide it was NOT the norm or did the majority of people polled support it.
Our elected officials were smart enough at the time to be ahead of the curve and actually look at the laws, freedoms and rights and decided to make the RIGHT choice which is what I believe will happen with Gay rights. It wont be long in my opinion.
Cant remember the numbers so don't hold me to them but when Cali passed it I think 80+% didnt want it, when the nation passed it 70+% didn't want it and sadly until I believe sometimes in the late 90s, yes the 90s was the first time ever the majority of people approved of interracial marriage.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?