|
Post by hector on May 21, 2008 6:42:27 GMT
I, for one, do not wish to see the views of a black minority inflicted upon society at large. I mean, what do they think? That they can drink from the same fountains than whites? What's next? Sitting in front of a bus?
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on May 21, 2008 7:03:51 GMT
Might be worth waiting to see what the point actually is BEFORE attacking it, Hec...
|
|
|
Post by hector on May 21, 2008 7:18:53 GMT
The point is perfectly clear. "The views of a minority inflicted upon society at large" The wording couldn't be any more explicit.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on May 21, 2008 7:24:26 GMT
Doesn't it depend on what the minority in question believe specifically, though? There are currently a tiny minority of Muslims in Britain, for example, who want British law subordinate to Shari'a and all women forced to wear burqas. Among other things.
They are certainly the views of a minority I would NOT want inflicted on the majority and I rather think you'd agree!
Granted thats an extreme case, but there are extremists in most causes.
So personally, I like to see exactly what views are supposedly so bad before I decide whether I agree or disagree.
|
|
|
Post by hector on May 21, 2008 7:35:05 GMT
That's why I chose that specific example. This thread is about equal rights, not more, as in the case you mentioned. You obviously knew that what I wrote isn't what I believe, right? But what if you hadn't?
Racism is mostly frowned upon. Yet, homophobia still isn't. I sincerely hope there will one day when that changes. And make no mistake, preventing gays from marrying is homphobia, no matter if it's disguised in 'moral values' or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on May 21, 2008 7:48:35 GMT
The thread is about equal rights, but it's bound to slide off in other directions, not least because there always comes a point when the desires of one group slam up against the desires of another and you have to walk a very fine course in order to be truly fair.
There ARE activists out there (in pretty much all causes) who seek not only fairness but domination, and they must also be opposed in the interests of fairness.
|
|
|
Post by peterh on May 21, 2008 11:07:29 GMT
does this mean that a theoretical law banning gay marriage would be possible not only in the most inbred, backwater hillbilly states of the USA but also in Mexico? Of course, Pete. Wherever there are bigoted idiots laws can be passed to restrict basic human freedoms. They are not restricted to the United States, or Mexico, or Europe. By the way, next time you try to get me, try using something I actually said. I never claimed Mexico was free of idiots. Far from it. Oh, I am quite aware you didn’t mention Mexico. It’s just curious that you’re rather quick in condemning the people in certain US states as being backwater inbred hillbillies while never once mentioning that the same problems apparently applies to a majority in your own country. But then, taking cheap shots at the US is easy as hell and so is being insulting. Just doesn't help anything if we're going to have a constructive discussion.
|
|
|
Post by peterh on May 21, 2008 11:10:28 GMT
As for the topic at hand I'm for gay marriage. If two people love each other then by all means let them marry wether being homosexuals or heterosexuals. Doesn't mean they're more or less worth than everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by hector on May 21, 2008 23:46:05 GMT
Of course, Pete. Wherever there are bigoted idiots laws can be passed to restrict basic human freedoms. They are not restricted to the United States, or Mexico, or Europe. By the way, next time you try to get me, try using something I actually said. I never claimed Mexico was free of idiots. Far from it. Oh, I am quite aware you didn’t mention Mexico. It’s just curious that you’re rather quick in condemning the people in certain US states as being backwater inbred hillbillies while never once mentioning that the same problems apparently applies to a majority in your own country. But then, taking cheap shots at the US is easy as hell and so is being insulting. Just doesn't help anything if we're going to have a constructive discussion. So unless I mention every single time my country's failings I'm unable to criticize any other country? You're grasping at straws. You wanted to come after me, you failed miserably. Let it go.
|
|
|
Post by Gay Titan on May 22, 2008 12:09:51 GMT
As for the topic at hand I'm for gay marriage. If two people love each other then by all means let them marry wether being homosexuals or heterosexuals. Doesn't mean they're more or less worth than everyone else. I love you, Peter!!!
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on May 24, 2008 22:00:58 GMT
I left several queries and remarks hanging in this thread; I haven't had much time or energy to post a lengthy reply (been working 2 jobs lately). I hope nobody minded the delay. I assume that this may have been a reaction to my post in which I said: My intent in posting that info was simply to illustrate that when a small group of judges decides what course the laws of a country will take, the results are not always just or desirable. No more, no less. The only relevance it has to the thread topic is that the law was enacted by a popular vote, and then altered by a panel of judges. -------------------------------------- does this mean that a theoretical law banning gay marriage would be possible not only in the most inbred, backwater hillbilly states of the USA but also in Mexico? Of course, Pete. Wherever there are bigoted idiots laws can be passed to restrict basic human freedoms. They are not restricted to the United States, or Mexico, or Europe. By the way, next time you try to get me, try using something I actually said. I never claimed Mexico was free of idiots. Far from it. By calling people bigots, idiots, etc. it will not help you to gain acceptance for your cause. Mexico and Latin America in general are traditionalist religious societies with strong family values. Gay marriage is not likely to find acceptance (Argentina and Uruguay are more European in culture and they might be exceptions). This does not make Latinos bigoted idiots. Homosexual marriage goes against their moral, cultural and family grain. You may not like it, but fortunately or unfortunately, the world does not change to conform to our opinions. As for "Legalization of homosexual marriage is only a first step for activists as has already been well demonstrated in the state of Massachusetts for one example." - I know nothing about that. Could you elucidate, please? In the state of Massachusetts gay activists are promoting the teaching of a homosexual curriculum in classes as young as kindergarten. This is particularly frustrating when considering the schools simultaneously are banned from teaching prayer or religion. Here are a couple of links to stories: School refuses to provide notification of a gay curriculum to parent of 5 year old6 year old is targeted and beaten because of his dad's attempt to shield him from a gay school curriculumTaxpayer funds used to promote gay curriculum.If it were possible to legislate a way for gays to be accommodated without a homosexual lifestyle being actively promoted as a mainstream way of life, without teaching it in the public schools, and without attacking the religious values of others I'd be all for it.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on May 24, 2008 22:35:24 GMT
There is, Cleg, but it's a fine line. The problem with humans as a species is that we tend to pendulum in our reactions rather than walk a sensible path on far too many occasions.
No-one should be persecuted for their religion any more than they should be persecuted for their sexuality, ethnic origin or anything else. It's just sad how far 'should' is away from 'is'.
A religious person should have the right to follow their religion as long as it does not involve persecuting others who do not share it; a consenting adult should have the right to love another consenting adult without being persecuted for it, etc, etc.
But far too often this idea of fairness gets lost in agendas, grudges and old hatreds on all sides.
As a species we have a long way to go before we even reach adolescence, let alone adulthood, I fear.
|
|
|
Post by ss on May 26, 2008 1:03:50 GMT
This was in the news here locally - I live in Norfolk.. By Kim O'Brien Root, Daily Press, Newport News, Va. May 23--NEWPORT NEWS -- Two men who obtained a marriage license in Newport News also had a marriage ceremony performed in Norfolk. But because it's illegal in Virginia for two people of the same sex to marry, the marriage was immediately invalid, said Rex Davis, clerk of the Newport News Circuit Court. Authorities are continuing to investigate whether the men broke any laws. The two men successfully obtained a marriage license March 24 in Newport News. Davis said one of the men clearly looked like a woman, so the clerk who issued the license didn't suspect anything amiss. The person who identified himself as the bride gave the name Justin Lewesley McCain, but pronounced it "Justine," Davis said. "Justin was dressed as a woman, his mannerisms were that of a woman, he was able to complete the process without raising any suspicions that he was anything but a woman," Davis said. That same day, the couple went to Norfolk and requested a marriage ceremony before a civil marriage commissioner. Al Coward, a former magistrate, also didn't suspect there were two men standing in front of him, he said Thursday. After looking over the marriage license, which appeared to be in order, Coward performed the ceremony. "I did the wedding, as I always do," Coward said. "I congratulated them, they paid me and they left." It wasn't until this week that Coward learned the truth -- when Davis called and asked if Coward knew he had married two men. Coward, who performs two to 15 weddings a week for $50 a ceremony, said he could barely remember the couple. "Holy crap," Coward said was the first thing he thought. "They were very good, obviously. They fooled a lot of people." Officials didn't even learn of the gender issue until McCain returned to the clerk's office on May 12 to apply to change his name. The suspicions of deputies, along with the requested name change -- to Penelopsky Aaryonna Goldberry -- raised some red flags, Davis said. That led court officials to recheck the marriage license. When Davis called McCain and confronted him, McCain admitted he was male, Davis said. Davis then told McCain that his marriage wasn't valid. "He said he had been led to believe that it was lawful in Virginia," Davis said. Davis said he didn't know why McCain wanted to change his name to that of a female, but told him he would have to appear before a judge to do so. Neither McCain, who gave his age as 18, nor his partner, 31-year-old Antonio Leroy Blount, could be reached for comment Thursday. After being contacted by Davis, Newport News police have done some interviews and will soon turn their information over to the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office, which will decide whether to press charges, said police spokesman Lou Thurston. Commonwealth's Attorney Howard Gwynn said he didn't want to speculate on possible charges until the investigation is complete. "We have to determine all the facts right now, and we won't know (about charges) until all the facts are in," he said. It's possible that the most the men could face is a misdemeanor charge for giving false information on a document, Davis said. That -- along with the knowledge that the marriage they thought they had never really was. Meanwhile, Davis has since changed some wording on his office's marriage license applications. In the spaces that previously asked for the names of the bride and groom, it now asks for female and male applicants. Staff writer Peter Dujardin contributed to this report.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on May 26, 2008 1:08:42 GMT
That's kinda sad... though I think a couple of those clerks need to get out more if they can't tell the difference between a man and a woman at their ages! ;D
|
|
|
Post by ss on May 26, 2008 21:12:11 GMT
Yeah, I thought the same thing. They had an interview with the civil magistrate, who was about 70 or more and he was laughing about it, said that "she" looked pretty good..... ;D
|
|