Bob, We have been through this over and over but this is the first time I believe I have seen you compare the civil rights movement with the gay rights movement.
What has obviously escaped you is that during the civil rights movement people were being discriminated against because of their skin color as opposed to their sexual preference.
As for the Constitution, men and women are given equal protection within our laws. Any gay man alive can wed a woman and rear a family and they would be offered the same equal protection and the same rights under which all men/women live. To say that we should expand our marraige laws to accomodate one's sexual preference would be ludicrous. We would open doors to rapist, child molesters, biggamist and eventually even those practicing beastiality (wouldn't Darwin love that?). We would have Catholic Priest trying to claim back pay for some alter boy(s) and sure enough, I would gaurantee you that some moron would try to marry his Golden Retriever to cover his vet bills. What? This isn't legal?? Try telling that to those law abiding citizens over in San Francisco who are about to get a major jolt in their welfare system. Judges are "changing" laws and making new ones everyday. And think about what would happen to the welfare programs in states like Utah. Men out their would like to marry multiple women.
I know you will argue that these other sexual perversions are not equal to one man wanting to insert himself into another man's backside but I cant see how it can be different. It is all sexual preference. It is all perverted lust. Legal or not legal? What does it matter when you have activitist Judges like the ones in Massachusetts or law breaking city officials like those in San Fran.
I truly understand your personal experience and I really do not care what goes on in another person's bedroom but I do start caring when these people start flaunting their immoral, deviant sexual lifestyles out in public.
Sure, me and you may have different definitions of morality but how would you like to take your grandchildren to a city park where they might witness a man romantically rolling around on the ground and kissing on his Lab dog or to see a man and his five wives having a picnic? "Grandpa, why is Priest Dimwit and that alter boy holding hands?"
You may think this extreme but considering your beginning viewpoint, I would think not.
Negroes had a legitimate problem. They did not choose their own skin color, it was inherited. Their problem concern them being able to marry other blacks. Their problem was the fact that they were black. They were not able to switch back and forth between being white and being black. There were no bi-negroes. They were stuck on black in a society that considered a black person to be less of a human being that a white person. They were sent to the back of the bus and forbidden from using the white's water fountains or restuarants. They were kept out of the better schools and the better paying jobs. Is this the way that you actually believe Gay people are treated? There is no comparison.
The gay man has the same equal rights and protections as the normal man and the gay woman has the same equal rights and protections as the normal woman. The whole problem comes about when that gay man wants separate rights to be applied to him because of his abnormal, immoral sexual lifestyle. I am sure many other groups would like their own special rights so that they could freely live out their sexual lust also.
Since when is marraige about sexual lust?
[This message has been edited by TRUTIDE (edited 02-17-2004).]
What has obviously escaped you is that during the civil rights movement people were being discriminated against because of their skin color as opposed to their sexual preference.
As for the Constitution, men and women are given equal protection within our laws. Any gay man alive can wed a woman and rear a family and they would be offered the same equal protection and the same rights under which all men/women live. To say that we should expand our marraige laws to accomodate one's sexual preference would be ludicrous. We would open doors to rapist, child molesters, biggamist and eventually even those practicing beastiality (wouldn't Darwin love that?). We would have Catholic Priest trying to claim back pay for some alter boy(s) and sure enough, I would gaurantee you that some moron would try to marry his Golden Retriever to cover his vet bills. What? This isn't legal?? Try telling that to those law abiding citizens over in San Francisco who are about to get a major jolt in their welfare system. Judges are "changing" laws and making new ones everyday. And think about what would happen to the welfare programs in states like Utah. Men out their would like to marry multiple women.
I know you will argue that these other sexual perversions are not equal to one man wanting to insert himself into another man's backside but I cant see how it can be different. It is all sexual preference. It is all perverted lust. Legal or not legal? What does it matter when you have activitist Judges like the ones in Massachusetts or law breaking city officials like those in San Fran.
I truly understand your personal experience and I really do not care what goes on in another person's bedroom but I do start caring when these people start flaunting their immoral, deviant sexual lifestyles out in public.
Sure, me and you may have different definitions of morality but how would you like to take your grandchildren to a city park where they might witness a man romantically rolling around on the ground and kissing on his Lab dog or to see a man and his five wives having a picnic? "Grandpa, why is Priest Dimwit and that alter boy holding hands?"
You may think this extreme but considering your beginning viewpoint, I would think not.
Negroes had a legitimate problem. They did not choose their own skin color, it was inherited. Their problem concern them being able to marry other blacks. Their problem was the fact that they were black. They were not able to switch back and forth between being white and being black. There were no bi-negroes. They were stuck on black in a society that considered a black person to be less of a human being that a white person. They were sent to the back of the bus and forbidden from using the white's water fountains or restuarants. They were kept out of the better schools and the better paying jobs. Is this the way that you actually believe Gay people are treated? There is no comparison.
The gay man has the same equal rights and protections as the normal man and the gay woman has the same equal rights and protections as the normal woman. The whole problem comes about when that gay man wants separate rights to be applied to him because of his abnormal, immoral sexual lifestyle. I am sure many other groups would like their own special rights so that they could freely live out their sexual lust also.
Since when is marraige about sexual lust?
[This message has been edited by TRUTIDE (edited 02-17-2004).]
