In response to:

Marriage: A Supreme Test of Rights

ca7 Wrote: Mar 04, 2013 4:07 PM
Judge Robert Jones: "Like heterosexual persons, they [homosexuals] may not marry members of the same sex. A homosexual man may marry anyone a heterosexual man may marry, and a homosexual woman may marry anyone a heterosexual woman may marry."
Roy323 Wrote: Mar 04, 2013 10:40 PM
Doug5049-I can surely agree with "blacks are not amused by talk of equating homosexual issues with civil rights issues". Nothing similar there that I can fathom.
Bill1895 Wrote: Mar 04, 2013 9:24 PM
No the argument against mixed race marriage was to prevent mixed race children.

Children are a natural product of marriage.

No matter how two (or more) men (or women) pervert their bodies they will not produce a child.
Bill1895 Wrote: Mar 04, 2013 9:22 PM
When did the definition of marriage changed?
ca7 Wrote: Mar 04, 2013 5:10 PM
"you mean you want the definition of marriage to change. why should it?"

The definition has already been changed in 9 states and D.C. The federal government discriminates against gay couples when they treat their legal (in their state) marriages differently than any other marriages. The federal government should not be in the business of only recognizing some legal marriages while discriminating against other legal marriages. Your side is going to lose on this issue.
eddie again Wrote: Mar 04, 2013 4:54 PM
you mean you want the definition of marriage to change. why should it? the government defines and regulates many different types of human relationships. the relationship of two male friends is nothing like the marital bond. if a person cannot see the difference between the relationship that exists between two male friends and the relationship that exists between a man and a woman who desire to procreate and raise children, he or she needs his or her head examined because it is obviously not working like it is intended to work.

re-defining marriage has NOTHING to do with homosexuals. it is all about people who hate the idea that the government encourages stable relationships for the procreation and raising of children.
Patriot155 Wrote: Mar 04, 2013 4:43 PM
Certain states have changed it but overall it still remains the same.
Jack2894 Wrote: Mar 04, 2013 4:41 PM
DOug, the thrust of this point isn't race. This is about the nature of an argument. The rejected argument against inter-racial marriage is exactly the same as teh argument advanced against gay marriage. The argument is wrong regardless of the topic.
ca7 Wrote: Mar 04, 2013 4:28 PM
Al Sharpton (2004): "I think it is not an issue any more of just marriage. This is an issue of human rights. And I think it is dangerous to give states the right to deal with human rights questions. That's how we ended up with slavery and segregation going forward a long time. I, under no circumstances, believe we ought to give states rights to gay and lesbians' human rights. Whatever my personal feelings may be about gay and lesbian marriages, unless you are prepared to say gays and lesbians are not human beings, they should have the same constitutional right of any other human being."
ca7 Wrote: Mar 04, 2013 4:23 PM
The first 2 presidential candidates to publicly support same-sex marriage were black.

Carol Mosley Braun in 2003: "We must do everything possible to support families - including lesbian and gay families. All of us - regardless of sexual orientation - stand to benefit from equal marriage rights because stable families strengthen our communities and neighborhoods.

Nobody should be penalized for loving a same-sex partner. In the same way that legal discrimination against interracial partners was wrong, discrimination against same-sex couples is wrong."
ca7 Wrote: Mar 04, 2013 4:20 PM
And yet the definition of marriage changed.
ca7 Wrote: Mar 04, 2013 4:16 PM
And surely you are aware that the approval of black people is not necessary for the two things to be similar.
Patriot155 Wrote: Mar 04, 2013 4:14 PM
And regardless of what bills were ever passed on inter-racial marriage, the definition of marriage still remained "one man and one woman". So, that arguement doesn't hold much water either.
Patriot155 Wrote: Mar 04, 2013 4:12 PM
We certainly aren't and the idea is ridiculous.
Doug5049 Wrote: Mar 04, 2013 4:09 PM
Blacks are not amused by talk of equating homosexual issues with civil rights issues.

From the very beginning, homosexual “marriage” activists have sought to hijack not only the moral authority of the Civil Rights Movement, but also the legal arguments which liberated minorities from centuries of legalized oppression and discrimination.

After decades of aggressive activism, the common sense understanding of marriage has become almost hopelessly mired in incomprehensible legal terminology. It becomes difficult for everyday observers to navigate the convoluted logic homosexual activists employ as they attempt to remake one of civilization’s oldest institutions. The argument that redefining marriage to include homosexual couples is only “fair” rests on a specious interpretation of the equal protection...