paddymcdougall
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2013
- Messages
- 3,032
- Reaction score
- 1,687
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I don't think so. with media, social media, etc, you may have a small group of holdouts, but they will be irrellevent.
There is a significant portion of people against both of those, even if still a rather small percentage.
There was a poll taken of Republicans in Mississippi in 2010 showing that 46% of them were against interracial marriage. There are still instances where JoPs will refuse to marry an interracial couple.
From 2013:
View attachment 67181704
In U.S., 87% Approve of Black-White Marriage, vs. 4% in 1958
13% is a pretty relevant amount considering the time we are currently living in.
Reverand Hellhound, I think the point about children is that, by having your marriage legally recognized by the govt, your children (and you) get a lot of protections that you wouldn't get if you didn't have the govt-legalized marriage.
Things like inheritance rights, visitation in hospital rights, custody rights in case of the partnership splitting up, etc.
I understand your point that you feel this should all be covered without govt interference; but that's going to be a lot of work. So given how our society is set up, it's easier to extend marriage to same sex couples (which you're fine with) than to toss the institution out altogether
Maybe in 30 years... I read in a book one time where the author envisioned contract marriages; you got married for 5 or 10 years; at the end of that time the contract was dissolved unless both partners agreed to re-sign it. That could work.
Wonder how ostracized Clarence Thomas and Ginny are.
see from 95 on?
that's that social media, thing I keep tekkubg yoou about, as it plateus, those are your hold outs, about 13% as you noted.
That's not a relevant amount.
Yes, 13% is still pretty relevant. It may not do anything when it comes to voting, but still a lot of people, Americans. That is almost 27 million Americans that do not approve of interracial marriages.
do you really expect 100%?
ever?
Dude? It's not about what YOU want. The changes you want will not stop the political conflicts.I don't know how many times I can say it, I don't care who you marry, what your call your marriage.
No, it doesn't. "Privatizing marriage" solves nothing.Sure it does, it takes who gets to tell others who they can marry, out of thier hands.
Dude? It's not about what YOU want. The changes you want will not stop the political conflicts.
No, it doesn't. "Privatizing marriage" solves nothing.
If we replace formal state marriages with a contract, then who can sign marriage contracts? If we legally restrict the contracts to "one man and one woman," then government is still involved, gays are still treated like second-class citizens, will not have marriage equality, and SSM advocates will still fight.
Yet again, the problem is not that "government is involved in marriage." The legislatures and courts merely happen to be the playing field. The issue is the normalization and acceptance of homosexuality.
There are far more people who disapprove of interracial relationships than there are those in those types of relationships. In fact, just looking at the percentages, a greater percentage of the population disapproves of interracial marriages/relationships than the percentages of marriages that are interracial, particularly white/black interracial.
Interracial marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did you bother to read my post? If we remove government from the process, AND we place no limits on private marriage contracts, the anti-SSM crowd will lose. This is because they do not want any sort of legitimate same-sex marriage at all.nonsense, 14th amendment for one. adults can engage in almost any contract as long as there is a "meeting of the minds". they can bitch all they want, it will be pointless.
:roll:So you want to legislate tolerance?
Did you bother to read my post? If we remove government from the process, AND we place no limits on private marriage contracts, the anti-SSM crowd will lose. This is because they do not want any sort of legitimate same-sex marriage at all.
The fight over SSM is not about semantics, it's not about reducing the role of government. It's about accepting homosexuality.
:roll:
No, I do not advocate "legislating tolerance." I certainly am not demanding that individuals give their personal blessings to same-sex unions. At no time have I advocated that religious organizations be required to perform SSM ceremonies. There are a wide variety of legal methods to express intolerance for an individual or group, and at no point have I advocated (for example) outlawing any form of speech, or requiring private clubs to be subject to anti-discrimination laws.
What I want is for homosexuals not to be treated by the state as second-class citizens.
I.e. please stop trying to hammer round pegs into square holes, kthx.
I don't think so. with media, social media, etc, you may have a small group of holdouts, but they will be irrellevent.
Reverand Hellhound, I think the point about children is that, by having your marriage legally recognized by the govt, your children (and you) get a lot of protections that you wouldn't get if you didn't have the govt-legalized marriage.
Things like inheritance rights, visitation in hospital rights, custody rights in case of the partnership splitting up, etc.
I understand your point that you feel this should all be covered without govt interference; but that's going to be a lot of work. So given how our society is set up, it's easier to extend marriage to same sex couples (which you're fine with) than to toss the institution out altogether
Maybe in 30 years... I read in a book one time where the author envisioned contract marriages; you got married for 5 or 10 years; at the end of that time the contract was dissolved unless both partners agreed to re-sign it. That could work.
see from 95 on?
that's that social media, thing I keep tekkubg yoou about, as it plateus, those are your hold outs, about 13% as you noted.
That's not a relevant amount.
What? Blacks are a minority in the US of 13.2%...that's not a 'relevant' amount? Meaning, not significant?
Race and ethnicity in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think 100% acceptance is unrealistic
Yes, it's about everyone being treated equally by the law.I thought it was about equal protection under the law, not an activist crusade to make people accept other peoples lifestyle.
...no, I want the law to stop treating homosexuals as second-class citizens. THOSE are my words.But you wish to pass laws to bring about "Accepting homosexuality". your words.
Yes, it's about everyone being treated equally by the law.
Yes, as I said, the anti-SSM crew are motivated to oppose SSM because they do not want our society to accept homosexuality as normal.
The anti-SSM groups are on an activist crusade to make everyone reject a specific lifestyle. Fighting against this does not mean "forcing people to be tolerant." It means "using the law to allow people the freedom to make their own choices."
This does not mean I am actually advocating any policies that "force tolerance." Like I said, I don't want any religious entities to be compelled to perform same-sex marriages. I don't want private clubs to be compelled to accept gay members. I am not proposing any restrictions on speech. I'm not requiring anyone to get married. As such, I am not trying to use the law to force people to accept the views of others. I'm trying to use the law to prevent a restriction of freedom.
And as noted, if you try to remove government from the equation, by default you're defeating the anti-SSM side. Thus, removing government does not qualify as a neutral stance upon which everyone can or should agree.
...no, I want the law to stop treating homosexuals as second-class citizens. THOSE are my words.
I think 100% acceptance is unrealistic
I have already explained why."And as noted, if you try to remove government from the equation, by default you're defeating the anti-SSM side. Thus, removing government does not qualify as a neutral stance upon which everyone can or should agree." I don't see why it doesn't.
I have already explained why.
If we privative marriage, then no one can stop two adult males from marrying, or two adult females from marrying. Without government enforcement, no one can mandate or control the use of the terms "marriage" or "civil union." This amounts to the legalization of same-sex marriage, which is explicitly what the anti-SSM folks are fighting.
Thus... it's not neutral. It's a victory for SSM.
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?