Previous 11 - 20 Next
Wow. Just won't accept that gay people are in FACT, born that way. NO ONE chooses, nor can change their sexual orientation. Macro biology geneticists DID map the sexual orientation gene. And their findings showed there is no differentiation, deformity or malformation for homosexuality, asexuality or bisexuality. It's ALL gender based, and gender is morally benign. Catch the hell up on scientific FACTS and EVIDENCE. The most OBVIOUS evidence that didn't need genetic mapping, is that homosexuality is and always has been universal to ALL human life. Without any influence from culture, nationality, economic strata, parental orientation or race. There is no Darwin theory of homosexuality dying out for lack of procreative extension. You WISH it was a lie. You have a supremacist's mindset. And one's chosen religion certainly isn't genetic, nor the attitude that it's only by a few genetic differences of your subgroup, your group is superior. It IS a viable civil rights argument, gay people are just as capable of being responsible, productive, law abiding and courageous citizens. Prohibiting them from optimizing any of that, on the SINGLE distinction they have, is just as bad as doing it to someone whose single distinction is their color, gender or national origin.
Not only does your comment make you a liar, it's not even an intelligent or logical comment. 1. More married, committed, responsible gay couples and parents ARE good for society. This has resulted in people with less poverty (since their financial and other benefits can be shared and inherited.) More children are adopted, and aren't raised entirely in a foster system that WILL damage them. 2. People who have hope to be loved and married, will ASPIRE to it. It's people who have no hope of it, and who anticipate being punished and harmed for it, that cannot benefit society. Hopelessness has that effect on everyone, so why advance hopelessness? 3. You're a liar about detriment to social systems and reducing opportunities for reproduction. First of all, do you SEE any reduction of reproduction?! If anything, our entire planet is endangered by too much of it. 4. As a distinctly large majority, heterosexuals have plenty of opportunity to find a companion among their compatible orientation than a gay person would. Where heterosexuals screw up, is assuming that at their enforced extremes, men and women will get along. Gays and lesbians represent a segment of humanity that TEMPER sexual tension between men and women. That keep those extremes from interfering with male/female attraction and relationships. In other words, a gay man could civilize a hetero man in how to get along with a woman in an optimal way. So the strategy of the anti gay as to how men and women's relationships work, has always been pretty messed up. Mostly because of unrealistic and unnatural ideology about what's male and female. There's plenty to support what I'm saying, you just don't WANT to believe it.
It's so patently dumb, and offensive that when it comes to discussing gay citizens, all manner of civil law and judicial action is reversed and flipped back and forth. The Full Faith and Credit clause in fact, makes it possible and it's reasonable so that a married couple is married, no matter WHERE they are in any country. Because there is and should be protections for citizens to NOT have to be subjected to unreasonable and unworkable civil and legal standards ONLY on the basis of what they are. Even CRIMINALS don't have to deal with this. So why ARE law abiding, productive, responsible gay citizens KEPT from optimizing said law abiding and responsible behavior? Even if they have children too? One of the dumbest comments here is "sodomy based law". Really? That denotes a fixation on sexual activity, and not the PUBLIC lives that gay people lead. Such as being productive professionals, parents and responsible citizens. THAT is what the inclusion and expansion of equal protections and rights are based on. How many ways and how many times does anyone have to be told that? There is no rational reason why gay people cannot freely do and be supported in doing and accomplishing, what hetero people do, accomplish and are even applauded for. When gay people and hetero people are doing the same things that have THE SAME RESULT, but only one group is being punished for it, THAT is what's morally wrong.
Grammatical error! I meant protection FROM tyranny by a majority.
As opposed to legislating at all? Some of these changes WERE through legislation. But I need to remind you again of the law that requires a minority be protected by tyranny by a majority. Gay people are a perpetual minority everywhere in the world. And have been subjected to (and still are) an astonishing amount of discrimination, casual hostility for being a non criminal class of people. And since there is a brutal legacy of isolation in this country as well, their needs and rights make it essential that their access to equal protections, rights and opportunity not be subject to a popular vote. The only reason there is a demand for it, is because of the assurance by the anti gay, that they have the political and social advantage. That in and of itself is immoral and people should be called out on the reason why. Recent history should be teaching you, that women and blacks have been subjected to different standards when it comes to public morality too. And they were all wrong, and defended by Biblical references as well. It's just as wrong to subject gay people to it also. I guess some people here really can't get their heads around the entirety of such a complex issue. That MUST encompass legal precedence, historical context and social intent and result. There's a lot of reaching back to Biblical references, but the Civil Rights Act, and any other precedents in that regard in recent history many of us are eyewitnesses to and directly affected by, eludes most of those commenting here. And that's really weird in an anti intellectual way
He won't be able to. People who are uninformed, ignorant and don't care they are, are part of the problem. They aren't the sort of people who have participated in advancing social justice for an unpopular group. It's a mindset that distinguishes itself. If he thinks for a second he'd have never supported Jim Crow, he'd be lying to himself and the rest of us. Those who supported Jim Crow, are people easily led to believing in their own supremacy against a MISUNDERSTOOD and chronically assaulted minority. Of course being called a bigot stings, that is rejected for reasons they don't have the introspection to examine to see if it's true as well. He's not questioning his prejudice, he's certain gay people choose their orientation and deserve the treatment they've been getting all along. He's questioning gay people and their motives, intents and purpose to even exist, let alone be treated like most productive, tax paying and responsible fellow citizens are without question. Blacks and women are still trying to justify who they are and why they are here in the world. Considering how it's religion that just showed up (thousands of years), against millions of years of human biological diversity, this is why demanding that religious belief take precedence over the existence of other people is arrogant, obnoxious and at the expense of the truth. And pretty much always has been. Religious people rely on ignorance and fear to advance their control of others. Gay people are trying to advance, education, information and social integration and only to be allied with their fellow human beings in whatever culture they are born into. They can't and never could change their orientation, but anyone can and usually does, have the freedom to believe what religion they want to. So that doesn't mean that people should be forced to get along with the religious, but that the religious need to learn and can choose to, get along with others.
@ Redraider: Wow, do YOU have a lot to catch up on where facts are concerned. In FACT, macro biological geneticists DID find the sexual orientation gene. There is no distinction between heterosexual, homosexua, asexual or bisexual orientations, meaning there is no abnormality, malformation or dysfunction within any of those types. A racist wouldn't want to know that we're not separate or different races, we are ALL THE SAME race. So yes, you ARE a bigot, just about a different type of human variation. Gender IS benign, as is sexual orientation. There is no SUPREMACY gene, THAT is certain. Just people who think or believe they have one, based only on being taught it, not actually accomplishing anything to prove it. Race, gender, sexual orientation have all been determined by genetics, but the historical precedent in which using a distinction in a minority group or women as a means of putting them in an inferior social position, not because they are actually inferior is the moral distinction you evidently cannot make. And that is essentially important to how social justice is advanced and understanding of people suffering a legacy of defamation and discrimination.
God, has never shown up in ANY court, legislation, Senate hearing, or house of worship to testify to anything to do with what kind of marriage is best or preferred. The march of time, and social justice have proven what is best, or worst. And gay people certainly are NOT the worst. Those opposed to gay couples marrying should concentrate on the guaranteed things hostile to families, marriage and children. Substance addiction, domestic violence, poverty and adultery. I'd have a lot more respect for the 'traditional family' mavens, if even a part of the political and monetary capital they are spending on harming gay people was put to use on strengthening laws that really put away people who endangered their families because of violence or drugs.
It's not that they are trying to lose their cases, they never had one to begin with when you consider the defense of discrimination have all been on the basis of things that are illegal or un Constitutional and no one is subject to. Have you really looked at the transcripts or been in on the court proceedings? How is "they don't spontaneously make babies" any kind of defense against gay couples marrying? How is "it's been how marriage is for thousands of years" a defense, when that is patently untrue? How is "children will suffer when they have gay parents" any kind of defense, when miscegenists tried that too and there is NO evidence gay parents are any worse for their children. Going back to the fact there is no morals, or skills tests when it comes to marriage and parenting required when you apply for a marriage license. And finally, how is 'marriage is damaged when gay people get married' any kind of defense, when there is no evidence of that or proof it's EVER happened? One can't use gay people as a defense for discriminating against them, on issues that have nothing to do with gay people or being gay. THAT is why these cases lose in a court of law. The gay folks bring proof, evidence, credible witnesses and precedents in social justice and family law. The opposition, never has.
Okay, I'll tell you: a gay person can't marry someone of their same sexual orientation. TIt's not just about gender. Heterosexuals are presumed to be marrying someone of their same orientation. And have that choice and are not prohibited from it. Necessary for optimal compatibility in a relationship. That is the discriminatory factor against gay people. Otherwise, all the requirements well established, gay people must and DO meet. It's funny that people keep saying that gay people are redefining marriage. When actually they are not. There is no moral, fertility, skills, endurance or health requirement to have the right to marry. But suddenly, everyone defending bans on gay couples, want them to be subject to such requirements. THAT is redefining marriage. Gay couples are doing what most people all have EVERY right to do. Marry someone who shares their same orientation, and be required to take legal responsibility for them and their children. And they have biological, step and adoptive children like everyone else too. And their children are in no less need of married parents than any other children. NO one is comparing race to orientation. Get THAT right. The comparison to injustice on the basis of a SINGLE distinction WHETHER it's skin color, gender, religion, national origin, disability or orientation however, IS very similar and has no place in a just and civil society any more than any other bigotry ever did. The proof? That Jacom Sullum is flogging the state's and voter's rights meme. When the Constitution is clear about protecting the minority from tyranny by a majority. Racists, segregationists, misogynists all flogged Federalism and voter's rights too. It's not the gay folks doing that. So think, if you can, about what I said.
Previous 11 - 20 Next