Anti-Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendments?

[M]

I just felt this needed to be said...

there are all kinds of people who are gay. its not just white folks. its blacks, hispanics, asian, whites, every one. why does everyone keep insenuating that it doesnt affect every single race?

[burgundy]

Aside from the skin color aspect, gays suffer the exact same thing with one exception.
Nobody made slaves out of them, robbed them of their language, culture, religion and most basic of human dignity.
Nobody made them to be less than animals and approved of their toture, rape, and general mistreatment.
They aren't viewed as barbarians and savages the way we once were.
No one is trying to intimidate them away from voting booths or making their votes worth less.

If gays aren't made out to be animals, they're still often made out to be defective and sinful.

Blacks may have suffered more as a group, but homosexuals suffer as individuals. How often are gay children disowned by their families? Black people suffered, but they suffered together. Until very recently, gays were outcasts.

And they definately don't have to live in fear of a bunch of ignorant, sadistic, doufusses in white bed sheets breaking down their door in the middle of the night, raping the women (and children) and hanging the men from a tree they way we used to.

There isn't violence against homosexuals? News to me.

There are no politics involved in wanting be seen as a human being rather than as an animal. We are talking about the right to be able to live life as safely and securely as any other human being without the threat of hatred burning a cross on your lawn or raping your daughter on her way home from school because some asshole wanted some "nigger pussy" to prove his manhood. The civil rights movement was about making sure that generations to come would never have to go through the same pain and suffering that its pioneers did in this country.

Tell me the Black Panthers weren't about politics.

For every gay political activist, there are 10 hardworking Americans who just want the same treatment that any other two consenting adults who consummate their relationships would get.

Ah, holy crap. We could go on about this for days, but for one, how about what homosexual priests have done to Catholic children? You've got two older men raising a young man, the older guys aren't getting along that well...that kid's not really his son, is it?

For someone who is calling out bullshit in this thread, that's a whole bunch right there.

Priests are often put in the position of being foster parents.

They're also put in the position of NEVER HAVING SEX EVER.

It's hard to even think about this stuff without sounding like some sort of Christian Crusader, but ignoring it is potentially extremely dangerous for these children, who we may be putting in harm's way.

Your example is pretty ironic because it says a lot more about the Catholic Church than it does about homosexuality.

And, look, it's difficult to deal with, but there is a historical connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. That's a fact.

Even if true,

"Many pedophiles are homosexuals."

doesn't say a damn thing about

"Many homosexuals are pedophiles."

Unless you think all Middle Eastern people should be banned from flights, since 100% of Middle Eastern terrorists are Middle Eastern.

I really didn't want to get into this anymore, but you can't really compare them can you? I mean, one side even had an organisation that kills them for doing something that offends them and then kills them on the side just for fun.

http://www.godhatesfags.com

Don't sweat it. It's got more to do with me not being able to get my point across clearly in the first place than you misunderstanding.

Yeah, I take back my initial vitriol after you clarified your point. Still disagree with you though.

Yes, but victims of gay bashing have a better chance of surviving said hate crime than victims of a lynch mob hellbent on murder.

You're seriously not trying to parse this down to survival rate, are you? What difference does it make?

I may just be unable to read between the lines, but where does that infer that the struggle of the African American is exactly like the struggle of the Homosexual? Because to me, it reads as it is: The same peson who would discriminate against Blacks would discriminate against gays; it's the same mindset.

CORRECT

I think the "also" in that phrase does it. It implies same level of intensity or treatment.

To me, your justification implies horseshit.

[Damian79]

godhatesfags.com

And? It's not like they find out where they live and kill them off one by one carrying knives and torches to burn their homes(assuming that it was anything like the 1983 Sri Lankan riots which my family just barely survived). And even if they escape, they have nothing but the clothes they are wearing.

[Brotherman]

I don't think anyone has brought this up yet, but one thing to consider about the issues and it's implications are the following:

The Benefits of Marriage will definitely have to be evaluated by the gov. (this may be the case even if homosexuals aren't allowed to marry). The key question is why are benefits given to married couples.

Next, is it worth while to keep these benefits even though gradually over time they could potentially be taken advantage of by those who get married only for conveniences sake rather than love.

In the end, will it come to a point that it would be best for the benefits to be completely dropped?

If it's a child birth thing, the benefits could be tied to children (but then you have the issue of people having kids just for the benefits which could potentially make it worse for the next generation.)

So how do you think this could affect the survival of marraige benefits themselves in the long run.

[Captain Vegetable]

I believe homosexuals should not be able to marry.

Some others believe they should.

Let's make a deal. I'll vote for my people, you vote for your people, and whoever wins gets to gloat, while whoever loses, reguardless of their feelings, opinions, and moral convictions, needs to realize that even if they do not like it, they're going to have to deal with it, because that's the kind of government we have.

You pick your reps to vote for your causes, and I'll pick my reps to vote for my causes, which are no less valid that yours, and whoever wins, wins.

[burgundy]

If the tyranny of the majority is fine with you, sure.

[AstroBlue]

And? It's not like they find out where they live and kill them off one by one carrying knives and torches to burn their homes(assuming that it was anything like the 1983 Sri Lankan riots which my family just barely survived). And even if they escape, they have nothing but the clothes they are wearing.

Again...

So you must be suppressed beyond a point before you deserve equal rights?

This is not a pissing contest; it's not a race to see who's more supressed or hard done by. Equal rights is not a counter point, it's not like we find out how much hate is out there and equal it out with the exact same amount of love. Equal rights is simply the acknowledgement that everybody is different, but deserves to be treated equally.

The above statement shouldn't be used by anyone who is serious about this issue. It is a bullshit play on the emo... ...of them have to do with black people.

What a load of condescending wank. It's not bullshit in any way. Sometimes the best way to make another party understand something is to use an "anchor" or "common understanding" to build your argument around. It's not trying to play on emotions at all, all it's saying is very simple: "If you think that Rosa Parks being forced to sit at the back of the bus was wrong, Why do you think it's right for a homosexual couple to not have the same rights as a heterosexual couple?". It's not trying to emote, it's trying to spark critical thinking.

If that sentence is bullshit, every literary work which uses metaphors, similes, comparision, contrast etc, to convey meaning is absolute bullshit.

[Damian79]

Again...

Having equal rights doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the violent discrimination that is involved. It doesn't even need to be brought up.

But I digress, all this came up because people misunderstood that quote.

[Captain Vegetable]

If the tyranny of the majority is fine with you, sure.

Whatever, man. Kick, whine, and scream all you want. The majority rules, no matter what you think is "right, fair, and just."

The difference between you and me is that I can realize this and reconsile it against my existence. If you and yours win, I'll think it fair and square.

[sethsez]

I believe homosexuals should not be able to marry.

Some others believe they should.

The difference being that giving homosexuals the right to marry has no direct negative affect on you, while banning homosexuals' right to marry directly affects millions of people negatively.

It's not an "us versus them" thing. Your life isn't going to change however this turns out, which is why you're able to be so indifferent to the end result. However, millions of gay people's lives are definitely going to be affected by this, which is why we're not quite so "let's just see how this turns out" about the whole thing.