All Americans desrve the same rights.
plasticpsyche said:Ughhhhhhh...Man, why is this topic on here?
Okay, I agree with Bennet and Scribe on this subject.
My two cents: By denying ANYONE the right to get married to the human being of their choice (man or woman), we are basically saying that said individual does not have the same rights as the rest of us. By saying that someone does not have the same rights as the rest of us, we're saying that they are not our equal. So really, those of you opposed to gay marriage are sort of saying that you don't look at gays as your equal. That you look at them as a group that is below you.. a group that doesn't deserve the same rights as you. That is plain wrong. All Americans desrve the same rights.
The gay population deserves to be equal, and marriage should be legal for them like it is for the rest of us.
Actually, I've only called two people bigots. The anti-Christ and the racist.General_Wiese said:WILL YOU STOP CALLING EVERYBODY A F*CKING BIGOT ALREADY YOU SELF RIGHTEOUS HIPOCRITICAL SOB. Bye the way everyone I won the bid on a mint condition new Silent hill 1 for only ten dollars. :avrillavi
General_Wiese said:NOW Mr. editor dont think for one second you can say that marriage is between a guy and a guy and a girl and a girl. Marriage, the sacrament or by law, is between a guy and a gal. Just to lighten things up, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
How bout them apples?
scribe999 said:By law it was okay for a 14 year old to marry in Kansas up until...hmmm...this year! Wow! Only NOW they find it inappropriate, which says to me that LAW is mutable and alters with the circumstances. For, as far as I can tell, if I were to marry I no longer have the right to beat my wife with a rod no bigger than the circumference of my thumb, I no longer have the right to force my children to work to support the family, I can not take complete possession of my wife's property, oh, and I can marry a woman who is not of my particular racial/ethnic background.
Y'see, that kind of fun thinking (the Sacrament or the Law?) sounds a lot like Virginia trial court judge Leon Bazile who, in 1965, sentenced a "mixed-race" couple who got married in Washington, D.C. His written decision included this yummy tidbit:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix
Yayyy...fuzzy expansion of Religious tenets wins out over reason and Constitutional guarantees of liberty! Only, it was overturned in 1967 by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia:
Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.
Seriously, avoid homosexuals, believe they're going to hell or whatever, make all the gay jokes you want at their expense...BUT realize that they are not disappearing and that they are fully considered citizens of the United States of America (except the illegal aliens I suppose), and they are entitled to the same Rights and Privileges extended to the rest of us.
Anytime anyone tells me how marriage has been defined, it makes me want to scream. It can be demonstrated again and again and again that no single definition of "Marriage" has survived through the trials of History to stand as the ultimate paragon of what marriage should be to all peoples. In fact, it has evolved, grown, shed much of it's horrendous nature of being purely for the motivations of economics and politcs, to being a choice consenting adults make to express love and committment (or to gain citizenzhip) in their own way. How's that for lightening the mood?