moosetracker 132 Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Five or ten years will tell if it is values or prejudice.. People in teen years can be persuaded to be in gangs, or hang and use drugs, or even do some small criminal stuff like vandalism or shoplifting.. But, I don't see too many teens "educating" their parents to the values of it, and they will normally either grow out of it, end up in jail or dead.. But, yes homosexuals are not criminals or drug-users.. Some may be more sexually diviant similar to hetersexuals that frequent brothels and prostitutions.. But, the majority have similar values to hetersexuals forming long term relationships, and permenent relationships.. They will hold decent jobs, be pillars of our community, and raise well adjusted children.. As you age you will see that the drug-addict friend is a down & out looser.. But, they will see their gay friends become businessmen, teachers, join the police force, and yes some may go into acting, fashion, or hair design etc.. Point is they will become productive human beings.. The polls are becoming more & more favorable to homosexuals because of the fact they do not pose a threat to society. The fear that they do, is slowly being proved false.. The polls have risen favorably for treating homosexuals fairly, because the younger generation are not changeing their attitude.. That is because it is not rational logic or solid evidence that show them to be immoral.. Simply a prejudice, and those trying to instill fear in people that they will be the downfall of our society.. But, we will give them another 5 to 10 years, and see if they change their attitudes. See if five years from now the polls have risin more in favor or lowered when all of a sudden this younger generation gets hit by lighting and comes to their senses in one great being lightning bolt of changing attitude.. Personally I believe that if you were right their would be a cyclical young age of acceptance, but always a older age of changing attitude, and the polls wouldn't be on a constant even rise as they are.. But, you can feel comfortable for another 5 or 10 years waiting for your miracle when the younger generation comes around to your views. Unfortunately when the polls continue to rise up to 55%, 60%, 65% in favor I will count it as proof that I am not wrong. The great thing about homosexuals comming out, is that like blacks before civil-rights, or women before the womens revolution, had low self-esteem, and like similar to blacks and women believed the sterotyping, and acted as they were expected to.. Now with their taking a stance, their self-esteem is improving and they are not accepting playing the part of your sterotyping. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 SeattlePioneer writes: Homosexuals are free to lobby government to be added to the short list of human relationships recognized by legal marriage, but there is no "right" to marriage: it's a legal privilege dispensed to only a few of the enormous variety of human relationships. Marriage IS a right under US law, as stated by the supreme court in Loving v. Virginia: These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Link to post Share on other sites
scoutingagain 20 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 "Homosexual interest groups have wanted endless favors from government to impose their own biases on society," Again, just a reminder... The Massachusetts Supreme Court in one of the early decisions on gay marriage simply acknowledged there was nothing in the state constitution that prevented two members of the same gender from getting married. It did not write new legislation. It was the opponents of gay marriage that then lobbied the federal and other state governments to pass laws preventing it...i.e seeking the power of the state to impose THEIR biases on society. Not the other way around. SA Link to post Share on other sites
SeattlePioneer 144 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Oh, dear! Low self esteem! As I said earlier, homosexuals are free to PERSUADE people of their merits as individuals and as a sexual class. Actually, they have made great strides in recent decades doing exactly that. In my opinion, that's the correct and proper method to use and follow. Using government to take away the right of people to hire whom they wish and enroll who they wish in their organizations takes away personal liberty and freedom. > More politics written into law by the Supreme Court. In fact, only a tiny percentage of human relationships are eligible to be recognized as legal marriage. It's an exclusive club to which homosexuals which to join. In my opinion, that's a reasonable political issue and if legislatures and voters wish to extend the privilege of marriage to homosexuals, they are entitled to do so. In Washington State, the legislature recently passed a law authorizing homosexual marriage, which has been referred to voters as a referendum. I will be interested in seeing the result in the November election. If the voters wish to extend the privilege of marriage to Washington State homosexuals, they are certainly entitled to do so. That's what the law making process is for. Link to post Share on other sites
Eagledad 2777 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 >>The polls have risen favorably for treating homosexuals fairly, because the younger generation are not changeing their attitude.. That is because it is not rational logic or solid evidence that show them to be immoral.. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 > More politics written into law by the Supreme Court. Well, since all rights are the result of politics, so? In fact, only a tiny percentage of human relationships are eligible to be recognized as legal marriage. Irrelevant. In fact, only a few people over seven feet tall marry. So what? It's an exclusive club Wrong. Under US law, it's a RIGHT. You can't just redefine a right and continue to make sense. You simply aren't dealing with reality any more. to which homosexuals which to join. In my opinion, that's a reasonable political issue and if legislatures and voters wish to extend the privilege of marriage to homosexuals, they are entitled to do so. Only for privileges. Marriage, under US law, is not a privilege, it's a right. Your argument is invalid. Link to post Share on other sites
SeattlePioneer 144 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 > Repeating it doesn't make it so. Every state law decides which very narrow group of human relationships are eligible for legal marriage. How many human relationships have you had in your life? How many of those persons could you have married? Were marriage really a right, you would be able to marry anyone and everyone. Of course, that's not the case. There are only a very few human relationships privileged to be recognized by legal marriage, and homosexuals wish to join that exclusive club. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 What kind of logic is that? Homosexuality has been deemed immoral for over 4000 years because God says so through scripture. What kind of logic is that? Millions of Americans don't follow your god; why would they care what you say your god says? Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 > Repeating it doesn't make it so. Correct, which is why your repeating that it isn't a right doesn't make it so. What makes it a right are supreme court rulings stating that marriage is a right. Which I've cited. You've got zip. Every state law decides which very narrow group of human relationships are eligible for legal marriage. Loving v. Virginia struck down all state laws that used race to outlaw some marriages. Because it's a right. How many human relationships have you had in your life? All of them. How many of those persons could you have married? Were marriage really a right, you would be able to marry anyone and everyone. If marriage is NOT a right, why has the supreme court ruled that Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"? Of course, that's not the case. Of course, it IS the case that marriage is a civil right under US law. Because that's what the US legal system says. You got nothin'. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 The Loving decision didn't decide that there was a generalized right for human being to marry whomever they wished. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man" Sorry, you're wrong. That decision simply decided that states couldn't ban marriage based on race. Because marriage is a right. There is no generalized right to marry. Now you're just making up legal-sounding meaningless phrases. You may as well claim that free speech isn't a "generalized" right because you can't get up and recite the phone book in the House while congress is in session. But that doesn't change the fact that free speech IS a right under US law, and marriage IS a right under US law. Link to post Share on other sites
Eagledad 2777 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 >>what kind of logic is that? Millions of Americans don't follow your god; why would they care what you say your god says? Link to post Share on other sites
Trevorum 24 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Barry, just to be clear, are you saying that homosexuality was accepted before the early Bronze Age? Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 >>what kind of logic is that? Millions of Americans don't follow your god; why would they care what you say your god says? Link to post Share on other sites
Eagledad 2777 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 >>Barry, just to be clear, are you saying that homosexuality was accepted before the early Bronze Age? Link to post Share on other sites
SeattlePioneer 144 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 If there were a right to marry, you could marry as many people as you wished of whatever age, define the terms of the marriage and how to dissolve it. Marry anyone you chose regardless of their relationship to you --- cousin, brother, parent or whatever. You can't, because marriage isn't a right. And of course homosexuals can't marry either in most states. Even where homosexuals have won a legal right to marry, that hasn't created a generalized right to marry. It has merely meant that homosexuals have joined the small and exclusive club of privileged social relationships eligible for legal marriage. Even most liberals don't want a generalized right to marry. They want to control who is eligible to marry just like conservatives, but they want homosexuals to join the club. Of course, it's much more satisfying to pontificate about RIGHTS, when what you really want is to join an exclusive club. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now