• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

??? Should Blacks marrie White's

F

freedom69714

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
211
Reaction score
2
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I must as everbody this ONE question if you were alive in 1890 would you have supported the right for a black man / woman to marrie a white man / woman ??!!! Please I must ask you to be hornest with your self !! Because the only ONE you are lying to is your self!!!

Just to let you know the reason the court's had to deside on this question is because! . If they alowed the people to VOTE on the rights for BLACKS to marrie WHITES they knew MOST of the people who have VOTED NO!.

You may ask why ??? because it did'nt CONSERN them and would not BENNIFET them

I ask a lot of you younger folks out there IF you alive in 1960 's would you have supported civil rights ????? PLEASE BE HORNEST WITH YOUR SELF

These same rule apply to GAY MARRIAGE we SHOUL NOT / CAN NOT
allow people to VOTE on this issue because if you are not GAY WHAT BENNIFET / CONNSERN whould it be to you ????!!!

Yes I heard all the CRAP that a marriage for the past 2000-4000-8000 ++++ years has alway been a MAN and a WOMAN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To that I say that's only 1 / 2 true in the PAST and even in some country's today
1 MAN can get Married to 3-5-8-15- 20 WIFE'S !!!!! If he want to !!!

A man could also BUY a woman and that even happen's TODAY a man today in SOME COUNTRY'S can buy a woman for price of 1 PIG

Of course if she is 13 years old you must pay MORE 1 PIG 2 GOAT'S and 3 bags of corn !!!! OF course if she is real HOT the price goes UP!!
 
If I was raised in the same open-minded, progressive way then as I was now, probably yes. Or I would have at least opposed the new segregation laws.
 
It's a good question to ask, but leads to another question. Does that mean people will support gay rights more in twenty to forty years? Race doesn't seem to matter now, so will sexual orientation? Within the same amount of time that African American's got right, will gays?
 
I think I would support civil rights, I support gay rights, let them do as they wish as long as I am not directly involved. I still think I would be as open minded as I am now, so yes, I think I would. :duel
 
The only problem with this question is that we look at these people as black or white or brown or yellow or whatever I don't care if they are green and purple. We need to set all traditions aside when dealing with an issue like this and just realize that they are people. Let me put it this way I have no idea what race anybody is on here and I don't need to know all I know is that we are all humans that all have our own opinions.
 
y'all know that conservative afro-americans get mad when you compare the gay movment to the cilvil rights movment.
 
If we have the reputation for being a free country then EVERYONE should be free to do the same as everyone else, regardless of race, sexual orientation, values etc. If we impose laws on a certain group of people it should logically follow that everyone else will abide by that law. To be a free country we must accept everyone.
 
Comparing gay-marriage to interacial marriage is insulting, wrong and racist. It upsets blacks and is a great example of how racist the liberals really are. Gay marriage has many negative affects on society, not just morally, but also economically. The State has the right to pass laws that preserve our country and are in the best intrests of our citizens. Interacial marriage is a great example of how open minded and non-racist America really is.
 
The writers here are not comparing gay-marriage to interacial marriage, but doing so would not be racist or insulting. If it upsets blacks, then it is because of homophobia.

In any case, it is perfectly legitimate to point out that in otherwise unique circumstances, the majority was wrong, and they weren't any more right just because they were a majority, which is the main thrust of the originating post. It is simply a way to get people to be a little circumspect when you are going to be denying someone else a liberty. In this case, the freedom to marry the person you love.

The freedom to marry the person you love is the liberty that was being denied in the case of interracial couples, as it is in the case of gay couples.

 
Last edited:
Dezaad said:
The writers here are not comparing gay-marriage to interacial marriage...

The freedom to marry the person you love is the liberty that was being denied in the case of interracial couples, as it is in the case of gay couples.
Click to expand...
Whether the writers here were comparing gay-marriage to interracial-marriage or not is no longer relevant since you just compared the two.

No liberty is being denied of any one because the right to gay-marriage never existed. Not to mention, gays are allowed to get married, just as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.

The government can take any "right" it wants away from anyone if that "right" is a danger to society. Gay marriage harms society both morally (which I know liberals don't care about) and economically.

Comparing the civil rights movement to the gay rights movement is tremendously insulting and like comparing apples to oranges (or apples to bananas). If we legalize gay marriage, where do we stop? How would we say "no" to polygamy, incest and beastiality without being hypocritical?
 
ConservativeShane said:
Gay marriage harms society both morally (which I know liberals don't care about) and economically.
Click to expand...

How?

ConservativeShane said:
Comparing the civil rights movement to the gay rights movement is tremendously insulting
Click to expand...

How?

ConservativeShane said:
If we legalize gay marriage, where do we stop? How would we say "no" to polygamy, incest and beastiality without being hypocritical?
Click to expand...

Oh, puh-lease!
 
ConservativeShane said:
Whether the writers here were comparing gay-marriage to interracial-marriage or not is no longer relevant since you just compared the two.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean by compare. If you mean that I stated that liberties were being denied in both cases, then, yes, I did compare them. If you mean that I equated the two, then I did not, though I might, if I found that they were equivalent.

ConservativeShane said:
No liberty is being denied of any one because the right to gay-marriage never existed. Not to mention, gays are allowed to get married, just as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.
Click to expand...
I have never heard anyone state that there must be a right taken away for a liberty to be denied. An interesting thought, but I disagree. A liberty is always denied when a right is taken away, however it is not necessary for a right to be taken away for a liberty to have been denied. A liberty is denied when a freedom is disallowed.

Everyone has the freedom to marry the consenting individual they love, except gay people. This is a liberty denied, whether you agree that gay people ought to be afforded that liberty or not. The assertion that gays can marry someone of the opposite sex is shown to be completely disingenuous, in the context of this discussion, by the obvious fact that it does not satisfy the obligation of liberty.

In any case, a right has been infringed. The right to pursuit of happiness, as the individual sees fit, where that pursuit does not infringe anyone else's rights.

The government can take any "right" it wants away from anyone if that "right" is a danger to society. Gay marriage harms society both morally (which I know liberals don't care about) and economically.
Click to expand...
Liberals do indeed care about morals. However, Liberals usually don't use the word morals to describe imperative demands on behavior. The reason is that the religious have co-opted the word, and Liberals don't want religion in government. Liberals have allowed the word morals to become a word that describes right behavior as it is "revealed" by any (take your pick) god. Had Liberals retained their usage of the word morals, they would have meant by it that morals are right behaviors as determined by reason. The "revelations" of the various gods often comport with reason, which is really no big surprise, but Liberals choose not to add god to their arguments letting reason stand on its own. Conservatives used to have the wisdom to do the same, but never religious conservatives, who have never had it.

It is reason that tells Liberals that the denial of the institution of marriage to gays is immoral.

In comparing apples to bananas, I must state that they are both sweet (though apples are usually sweeter), contain many of the same vitamins and fiber (though many are also different), and grow on trees (though bananas grow in large bunches and apples in small bunches or singly) .

In "comparing" gay marriage to interracial marriage I have stated that the freedom to marry the person you love is denied in both cases. I have not stated that the marriage in both cases would be between people of opposite sexes or that they would be between people of different races. So, I have not equated them, if that is what you are worried about.

If we want to say no to polygamy, incest and/or beastiality, we will do so with the force of reason, and there will be no need to be hypocrtical in doing so.
 
That entry was pretty long, so I didn't read the whole thing. But the parts I did read seemed to be the same repetitive thing that you liberals always write. I can't stand to read the same thing over and over and over again. Maybe I'll stay out of this thread.
 

Perhaps that would be best, considering.
 

A simple question, and no one has tackled it headon. The answer, unless you are a most unusual person, is NO! Definitely and emphatically NO. There was a part of the population which devoted itself to marginalizing and demonizing blacks. This had been going on a long time and it continued past WWII. This movement had thoroughly suceeded in poisoning the polis. Blacks were pretty much regarded as vile and untouchable creatures. That movement was not finally defeated until the 1960s, though remnants are still seen waving confederate flags.

Most of you didn't live in that climate and can't really understand its effects. I grew up in it and today I wonder at my own acquiescence. The one thing that makes Huckleberry Finn a great book is the struggle that the protagonist had in deciding not to betray his friend, the slave Jim. Huck broke free where most of us don't.
 
Maybe you ought to be careful of what you wish for. If there were a sudden about face of America's gay men, regular dudes will be sweating it. A sudden influx of men who like to shop, dress well, decorate & cry at good movies into the hetero scene, could bode disaster for "reg'lar" dudes. They might find "their seed being left to wither in the barren grounds of thine own fruitless loins."...so to speak.
You might want to count your blessings...cause, psst, lots of them homos are fine looking too, um hmmm.
ConservativeShane said:
The government can take any "right" it wants away from anyone if that "right" is a danger to society. Gay marriage harms society both morally (which I know liberals don't care about) and economically.
Click to expand...
For someone who certainly talks about morals alot, you sure have evidenced a paltry amount of morality spewing from your active fingers. Since when are intolerance & vituperation moral values?
ConservativeShane said:
Comparing the civil rights movement to the gay rights movement is tremendously insulting and like comparing apples to oranges (or apples to bananas).
Click to expand...
Comparing the civil rights movement to the gay rights movement is done because of the obvious similarities. Uptight chicken littles, afraid of change, spoonfed intolerance, who will stop at nothing, whether it is invoking the Bible or Hitler, to deny people of their equality in this American society.
ConservativeShane said:
If we legalize gay marriage, where do we stop? How would we say "no" to polygamy, incest and beastiality without being hypocritical?
Click to expand...
Wow, original that. Right out of Rick Santorum's taut hypocritical lips.
Polygamy? If the parties are of age & consenting, I really don't see a problem with it.
Incest & bestiality? Why might your moral outrage at others comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement be a little hard to swallow? Ummm, because you have the backwards, ignorant balls to compare homosexuality w/ incest & bestiality. You have a problem w/ incest & bestiality? They certainly are prevalent in our society. Why don't I hear the right crying out about these problems? Because most of the instances are committed by straight men? How about child & spouse abuse? Why concentrate your hate on people who are just trying to be happy & have a secure future? There is no shortage of humanity out there that cares not for anyone's happiness & security, whether you are black, white, gay, straight or all. Why not focus your high-powered hate beam on folks who really deserve it?
Show compassion & respect for human dignity. Then perhaps someone will listen to any legitimate concerns you have. None of which you have yet evidenced here.
 
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:
A simple question, and no one has tackled it headon. The answer, unless you are a most unusual person, is NO! Definitely and emphatically NO.
Click to expand...

Hi KTC,

I would love to contradict you there, but in all honesty I fear you are absolutely right. Had we grown up in that era most of us would have said a very loud "No" to that question, and those of us like myself who these days can live openly with our same-sex partners wold have been repressed closet-cases. Sad, but true!
 

You know, 30 years ago the idea of "gay marrage" was way off. No one concieved of it. It was so far fetched that if one did mention it they were considered crazy. Nuts - wacko - sinner...

Now, someone mentions beastiality and marriage - it is IMMEDIATLY construed as comparing homosexualism to beastility.

With the above said, where does that marriage line get drawn? 30 years from now will marriage and animals be on the table of the senate? How far fetched is the statement really?

Purhaps it is you who is not seeing where the possibilities lie or where this path might lead us. Rather than accusing someone of saying that homosexuality is like screwing an animal, take a look at the point he was attempting to make about the future. Calling the question crazy or stupid just helps us realize the fact that you are as closed minded as us conservatives are often accused of.

You have a problem w/ incest & bestiality?
Click to expand...

Yes I do, and I bet you do too as well as CS.... but that is not the point here.
------------

As for the topic, I do not condone interracial marriage TODAY why would I 150 years ago?

As for if I would have supported Civil rights in the 60's - damned right I would have!
 
Last edited:
vauge said:
As for the topic, I do not condone interracial marriage TODAY why would I 150 years ago?
Click to expand...

Why ever not? What, actually, is wrong with interracial marriage? Do you have a single logical argument to support that statement?
 
Here is what my dad told me when I was younger.

A blue bird does not mate with a cardinal. Both are very fine and wonderful birds. Somehow these birds know that nature did not intend to make a purple bird out of them. So they don't.
 
vauge said:
Here is what my dad told me when I was younger.

A blue bird does not mate with a cardinal. Both are very fine and wonderful birds. Somehow these birds know that nature did not intend to make a purple bird out of them. So they don't.
Click to expand...

My dad told me that non-white people bring problems on themselves because they demand to be treated as equals. I grew up and learnt to think for myself.
 
Naughty Nurse said:
My dad told me that non-white people bring problems on themselves because they demand to be treated as equals. I grew up and learnt to think for myself.
Click to expand...

Interesting - my dad told me that everyone is equal. Quite the opposite.
Sounds like your dad had issues.
 
vauge said:
Interesting - my dad told me that everyone is equal. Quite the opposite.
Sounds like your dad had issues.
Click to expand...

He sure did - lots of them.

Equal, but shouldn't marry? Sounds a bit like segregation to me.
 
vauge said:
Here is what my dad told me when I was younger.

A blue bird does not mate with a cardinal. Both are very fine and wonderful birds. Somehow these birds know that nature did not intend to make a purple bird out of them. So they don't.
Click to expand...

*Gets up off the floor, checking calendar* Yep, it's still 2005. :screwy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…