How is denying same-sex couples the legal right to marry any different than when they used to deny that same right to interracial couples, and thus an utter violation of civil rights?
2007-06-28 16:33:12 · 22 answers · asked by Sarah 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Prior to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) decision in the case of Loving v. Virginia, the argument was that there was no discrimination because you could marry anyone that you wanted to, as long as they were of the same race.
The argument now is that you can marry anyone that you want to, as long as they are of the opposite sex.
This is almost a carbon copy of the previous excuses to justify discrimination by saying "You can marry whoever you want to as long as they are _____"
Discriminatory practices based upon who someone happens to fall in love with are inherently wrong, whether by race or by gender. It has been 40 years since someone was told it was OK to love someone of another race, and if someone loves someone of a certain gender that should be OK too.
2007-06-28 17:34:26 · answer #1 · answered by χριστοφορος ▽ 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
People are really quick to spout off about how this is like comparing "apples to oranges." How ironic, when you consider that although things have gotten BETTER for interracial couples, there are still some parts of the country where things still haven't changed all that much. So why should we still be surprised that gay rights is still a red-hot subject, when we still as a whole haven't really dealt with the issue of race?
And BTW, Marc E. needs to go back and crack some Black History books. Yes, non-white races were subjected to oppression and brutality on a scale that was unbelievable, but lest we forget, there were also slave-owners and sellers and procurers who were also not white. So ease off of your high horse there, bruddah.
2007-06-28 18:15:39 · answer #2 · answered by dreamchaser8860 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I couldn't agree more. It is indeed a violation of civil rights, but the evangelicals, particularly the Southern Baptists have always been behind the curve on civil rights and human rights. They broke away from the mainstream Baptists because the Baptists said slavery was wrong. Now they have a problem with gays and gay marriage. At least they're consistant... consistantly wrong, but God will judge.
Personally, if I were to find someone of another race (but aren't we all humans? what's this other race stuff? we're talking about other humans, right? It's not like you're asking me how I feel about marrying a Klingon, are you? Humans are humans and they come in all shapes, sizes and colors, that's what makes them so delightfully interesting!), with a good and loving heart, someone who would treat me like a lady and not like a piece of meat to devour... without a bun even! If he were to ask me to marry him, I'd accept in a New York minute!
I hope for the day when the only mean, vicious hateful people left are kept in museums under glass... and I think Ice Cube is cute!
2007-06-28 16:50:46 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I was told when I was little no one can stop you from deeply loving anyone. Guess my Mother isn't getting the right news from her newspaper! It's agaist the civil rights! LOVE IS LOVE! You can truly love your neice if you are an aunt! There isn't anything wrong with that! A male teacher can take a dad role to his student, it isn't considerd wrong for being close to your class!
2007-06-28 17:24:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Annessa many women can't even have babies so your logic is not logic at all. God didn't place all straight people on Earth and neither did he place all gay people on earth. So the population is going to run out and gay men can still have sex with straight women in order to make a baby the same for lesbians and straight men, that's my opinion thanx
2007-06-28 17:03:26 · answer #5 · answered by wondrous 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You can see it as yet another bump in the civil rights road or you can see it as at least with interracial couples, there was a sex difference and it was okay.
With gay couples it's a very passionate arguement of whether or not these people are following the natural pattern that we call heterosexuality.
2007-06-28 16:37:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
morality and nature argument is destroyed by this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPzso1OOTPM. Some gay blacks and Desmond Tutu agree that there's no difference between racism and homophobia (http://www.afrol.com/articles/13584)
It's not a lifestyle choice as no-one would choose a life where they may get raped, abused and murdered plus lose thier family and friends over whom they love, as for babies bi-sexuals can have babies, plus gays and lesbians can still produce sperm so they aren't ruled out genetically
2007-06-28 22:24:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sounds to me like you are making an inference here. Your question & details imply homosexuality is genetic. A claim that has yet to be proven.
2007-06-29 02:54:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's funny because we think the world is so modern and free. But we have a lot of mistakes we need to fix. And to answer your question, it's just the government taking religion and making it into their own.
2007-06-28 16:38:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
because marrying a person of another race does not go against nature, we're all on species, human, duh. But marrying the same sex goes against the laws of nature and then everything after that like religion and morals. and no body make a stupid point about penguins having "same sex life partners" that is just bs. and call me what you want, ppl know it's wrong, i just don't know why they keep puching for it to be accepted. If this is let through who knows what else will be accepted.
2007-06-28 16:56:08 · answer #10 · answered by syssang4 2 · 1⤊ 5⤋