> Sam wrote: >>>People made the same argument about civil rights for >>>Blacks in the 60's and woman's sufferage in the '20s. >>>Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The American culture >>>will never be "ready" for it -- they will get used >>>to it. >>> >> You're comparing the use of the term marriage to the >> inequality of blacks. There's no comparison.
> I disagree. We're discriminating agains a subsection > of the population based on something they have no > control over. I think there is a comparison. > Moreover, the point I was making is that the majority, > at least in the South, didn't want equality for blacks, > but we still made the legal changes that were necessary > to promote the cultural change. It doesn't matter whether or not you think the magnitude of race discrimination makes the comparison rediculous. The fact is that it's discrimination against a group of people for something that -- quite frankly is none of your business. >>>Okay, I'm going to take a bit of offense here. >> >> You're right, bad example. How about polygamy? Why >> can't I have multiple spouses? If they all agree don't >> we have the right? > *Much* better example. For the record, I think we > should allow polygamous marriages, but that's an > argument for a different day (or at least thread). :-) There are a lot of us who feel that way... Including myself, and I don't even want to get married to ONE person, much less many, but I still believe the people who want to do that should have the right. >>>If the clerk asked you if you wanted a marriage or >>>civil union, you have a choice. Having the choice >>>taken away from you is what's hurtful. >> >> Having choices are nice but not always an option. >> Sometimes I want to use the ladies room but I'm >> not allowed. > As far as I know, it's not illegal for a man to use > the women's room. It just gets you kicked out of the > bar. I could be wrong on that. Also getting married to someone of the same sex doesn't violate anyone's privacy -- or for that matter harm anyone in any tangible way. If you can prove tangible harm to others then perhaps you'd have a case, but as you say he supports civil unions, so if as you say it's the same thing (which it's not) then you're admitting there's no actual harm involved in gay marriage. The implication of allowing them to have civil unions is that gay people are somehow inferior. There's no getting around that point. We want to get married? You're of oposite sexes? Yes. Good, do you want a marriage or a civil union? vs. We want to get married? You're of opposite sexes? No. We'll be happy to perform your civil union. What's wrong with a marriage? You're not of the same sex? Why does that make a difference?... The only possible conclusion to the latter conversation is either the admission or the assumption that gay people are inferior. It is fundamentally the same argument (you must of course focus on the argument and not the context) as telling a woman she can't vote or telling a black person they have to use a different water fountain. s. isaac dealey 954.522.6080 new epoch : isn't it time for a change? add features without fixtures with the onTap open source framework http://www.fusiontap.com http://coldfusion.sys-con.com/author/4806Dealey.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Purchase Captivate from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=52 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:173644 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
