- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 7,254
- Reaction score
- 364
- Location
- Jacksonville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
ProudAmerican said:
Separate but equal ring a bell?
ProudAmerican said:how is affording someone the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as everyone else, but naming it something different so the definition of a traditional word doesnt change discrimination?
ProudAmerican said:how is affording someone the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as everyone else, but naming it something different so the definition of a traditional word doesnt change discrimination?
Stace said:Separate but equal ring a bell?
Not to mention a very large percent of the US population doesn't want gays and lesbians to be recognized at all (no civil union, no domestic partnership, etc)
ProudAmerican said:no. it doesnt. apples and oranges.
keeping Blacks from drinking out of the same water fountains was NOT EQUAL.
calling homosexual unions just that, in no way constitutes "seperate"
Not a historian? Separate but Equal mean anything to you??? It was wrong for races and it's equally wrong for sexual preference. I think the Separate but Equal argument is one that underscores how people DO discriminate against Gays and have found a way to justify their prejudice and discrimination in their own minds by offering lame "solutions" that are insulting at least and evil in a way too.ProudAmerican said:how is affording someone the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as everyone else, but naming it something different so the definition of a traditional word doesnt change discrimination?
Navy Pride said:A lot of African Americans are offended by radical gays and "Feel Good" liberals trying to compare their fight for equality when in reality there is no comparison.................
ProudAmerican said:no. it doesnt. apples and oranges.
keeping Blacks from drinking out of the same water fountains was NOT EQUAL.
calling homosexual unions just that, in no way constitutes "seperate"
Alex said:I think she is right on this. She is saying that as long as all unions, whether they are marriages or civil unions, are equal under the law, they are not separate. Just because something has a different name, does not necessarily mean it is different.
For example, all marriages are currently called just that. A subset of marraige may be "interracial marriage". Just because a marriage is also called "interracial" does not mean that it gets any inequality under the law.
I think this is what she is trying to say.
Alex said:It is not the duty of legislators to create policy that interferes in people's personal lives.
Alex said:Children are better served in a heterosexual family? What makes you the expert on this? Do you have anything to back that up? If you do not, then you have made an irrational statement.
From the American Psychological Association:
"In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."
To support their argument, plaintiffs and amici supporting them refer to social science literature reporting studies of same-sex parents and their children. Some opponents of same-sex marriage criticize these studies, but we need not consider the criticism, for the studies on their face do not establish beyond doubt that children fare equally well in same-sex and opposite-sex households. What they show, at most, is that rather limited observation has detected no marked differences. More definitive results could hardly be expected, for until recently few children have been raised in same-sex households, and there has not been enough time to study the long-term results of such child-rearing.
This isn't about = rights. You can't compare gays with blacks. Try going to an NAACP meeeting and see what they think about your arguement.Stace said:Alex has it pretty much right. Your example is pretty flawed, ProudAmerican....because see, blacks were still allowed to drink out of water fountains. They just had their own. That actually illustrates MY point rather well. Separate water fountains, but hey, everyone was allowed to drink out of water fountain, no one was denied that, they just had to drink out of the proper fountains. Gays aren't allowed any sort of marriage or civil union except in select areas. Therefore, they aren't even granted the same rights as the rest of us. And it's not like the act of a black person drinking out of a water fountain had different terminology than the act of a white person drinking out of a water fountain.
And here is where you would enter what Alex has said. While I would love to see gay marriage come about, civil unions would make me just as happy, as long as all of the laws were the same and they weren't treated any differently. I mean, honestly, it is just a freaking word that people are quibbling over. A WORD!! Don't you people see how silly that is? The meanings of words change and evolve over time. I mean, heck, my dictionary here at home, I've had it for about 10 years now....and it doesn't even specify that marriage is between a man and a woman, it says "the legal union of two people in wedlock". Back in the day, "gay" was only used to mean "happy"...."fag" used to refer to a cigarette, and now it's used in a derogatory manner towards gays.
But I don't care about the terminology. People are going to call it what they want either way. Just afford them the same rights the rest of us have, that's the important matter at hand.
I mean, honestly, it is just a freaking word that people are quibbling over. A WORD!! Don't you people see how silly that is?
ProudAmerican said:that works both ways.
if the "word" isnt important, then it shouldnt bother homosexuals to call it something else. something that leaves tradition in tact, and doesnt try to change it.
and I think myself and mpg are right. discriminating against someone because of color, race, or nationality is hardly the same thing as asking a group of people that practice abnormal sexual relations to define their legal union as something new, rather than changing the traditional definition that has been in place for centuries.
Many abnormalities are as old as time and many abnormalities exist in the animal kingdom.Stace said:Just because YOU think it's abnormal, that doesn't mean that it actually is abnormal. Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time, and also occurs in animals. Hardly an abnormality.
Besides, if they'd have the exact same rights that us heterosexuals have for our marriages, which they should, their legal union would hardly be anything new.
But you're pretty much beating a dead horse, because I've already stated that I would be perfectly fine with homosexuals having their unions be called civil unions versus marriage. As long as it's equal in every way to a heterosexual marriage, I really couldn't care less what it's actually called.
Stace said:Just because YOU think it's abnormal, that doesn't mean that it actually is abnormal. Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time, and also occurs in animals. Hardly an abnormality.
Im absolutely proud with what happened here. Atleast someone is attempting to fix a problem that is plaguing our society today. This is an issue that will be a problem for as long as Homosexuals exist. If they cant get a basic animal trait down such as heterosexual relationships how are we supposed to trust them not to attempt to pass on their disease to other people?aps said:It totally stinks! I haven't read through the article or the opinion, but will later. What a disappointment.
RightatNYU said::lol: So whose duty is it?
You realize what an unfounded argument this is, right?
Why are there laws against drug use? Why are there laws against allowing children to see porno? Why are there laws regulating what can and cant be said on prime time tv? Why are there laws against what one consenting adult can pay another for?
Because that's what legislatures DO. Always have, always will.
Goobieman said:Then it is abnormal.
RightatNYU said:Again, as the decision pointed out,
Whether or not current scientific research leans one way or the other is NOT the point. The court was not set up to be an arbiter of science or policy. That is the role of our ELECTED officials.
TheNextEra said:And just because something is abnormal, does not make it automatically bad.
ProudAmerican said:I was going to respond to staces comment about normal and abnormal,
but I was beaten to the punch by more than one person.....
geeeeeessss, dont you people have jobs????
Goobieman said:Abnormal:
adj.
-Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal; deviant.
adj.
-Deviating from the normal or average; especially : departing from the usual or accepted standards of social behavior
adj.
-Not normal; not typical or usual or regular or conforming to a norm;
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abnormal
Among humans, is homosexuality typical?
Usual? No?
Regular? No?
Does it deviate from the avergage? Yes?
Then it is abnormal.
Typhoeus said:Im absolutely proud with what happened here. Atleast someone is attempting to fix a problem that is plaguing our society today. This is an issue that will be a problem for as long as Homosexuals exist. If they cant get a basic animal trait down such as heterosexual relationships how are we supposed to trust them not to attempt to pass on their disease to other people?
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?