Lack of LGBT characters and the "magic bullet"
- Thread starter V
- Start date
Obviously. But marriage is both a civil and a religious institution in the United States; this is an indisputable fact. That's why you don't have to go to a church to get married. Therefore, as a civil institution, civil marriage has an obligation to be equally open to all citizens, as per Loving v. Virginia (which defined it as a right) and the 14th Amendment's requirement for equal protection under the law.
Some state constitutions define it this way, yes. By doing so, those state constitutions violate the 14th Amendment and Loving v. Virginia's finding that marriage is a fundamental right. Those state constitutions only say so because so many people hold bigoted beliefs about marriage and LGBTs.
But that's not the same thing. That's separate-but-equal. The problem, of course, is that separate-but-equal has been illegal in the United States since Brown v. Board of Education. As the Supreme Court noted in that ruling, you're not equal if you're separate.
And they want to get married. Who the hell is anyone else to tell them they can't? That's oppression, pure and simple. All you're trying to do now is justify oppression.
And also: No, not every state even allows for separate-but-equal. LGBTs in Ohio, for instance, are denied even civil unions or domestic partnerships. They get nothing.
No, marriage is a fundamental right for all people. That's why it needs to be opened for LGBTs, not banned for everyone.
Of course it doesn't. I'm straight myself. Being straight doesn't mean being in favor of oppressing LGBTs or being "evil" or "psychopathic."
Why on Earth would you take arguing for LGBT equality to mean that someone thinks straights are evil?
I'm just saying that their is two sides to every stories.... Dancing around naked, shooting drugs and having orgies all day and night doesn't often win someone's respect and admiration.... [laugh] Whether you care to admit it or not, that's how the mainstream gay culture is like in the U.S.. (At least, that's the idea of normal gay people....) If you don't believe me, just go watch "Queer as Folks", U.S. version.... Would you behave like that in front of your grandparents and parents?
It's constantly evolving. There was a time when mutual consent was not required for marriage.
There's plenty of straight people who dance around naked, shooting drugs, and have orgies all day and night. They don't do it because their sexual orientation, they do it because they have fun doing it. This "main stream" idea is what is known as a stereotype. And while there will always be those that fit a stereotype, that does not mean it's right to lump everyone into that category.
The Constitutions is supposed to protect liberty...not just freedom and rights.... (Liberty meaning minority....) If that's they way some people believe and marriage in this country has become institutionalized that way, I don't think they can force the people to accept it. That's why the just opted for another solution. By gay couples living together, they can get the same benefits as regular couples. That would satisfy both groups without violating The Constitutions. And...let's face it, this gay marriage is entirely new to a lot of people. It's not exactly traditional and conventional, but you can view it in a different way. That's why each state can decide on this issue itself; federal government can't pass a law for or against it.
And about subject on being prejudice and ignorant.... I think everybody prejudice in one way or another. After all, does anybody really know anything? Nothing is certain.... And nobody knows everything.... Whether you're gay or straight (in this culture and probably most of the cultures around the world), that certain behaviors (such as what I said before) are inappropriate at certain time and circumstances. We need to find a middle ground.
No, there aren't. For some stories, there are not equally valid sides, and LGBT rights is one of them.
In my life, I have known dozens and dozens of LGBTs. Some are extroverted and outgoing. Some are shy and reserved. Most are somewhere in-between, just like most straights are.
I have never ever met an LGBT individual who danced around naked, shot drugs, and had orgies all day.
By characterizing LGBTs as such, you are engaging in rank bigotry and stereotyping.
No, that's a stereotype.
Are you seriously trying to claim that most LGBTs are decadent and promiscuous because you watched a TV show?
I never watched Queer As Folk -- but I know better than to take it as an accurate depiction of mainstream LGBT subculture in the United States, any more than The Sopranos accurately depicts what mainstrain Italian American subculture is like, or than Big Love accurately depicts what mainstream Mormon American subculture is like.
Don't confuse a TV show about a small and misguided segment of a subculture -- in other words, a subculture of a subculture -- with the reality of that larger subculture.
Stop stereotyping and stop justifying the oppression of LGBTs.
My grandparents and my parents are absolutely delighted that my cousin and her girlfriend have decided to get married.
ETA:
You can choose to not accept it all you want. But it's a violation of the 14th Amendment's requirement for equal protection under the law to deny LGBTs equal access to civil marriage.
A constitutional response from someone who doesn't like same-sex marriage would be to say, "I don't agree with it, and I'll never join a church that condones it, but I recognize that they have the legal right to have a civil marriage."
No, it wouldn't. It would not satisfy LGBTs, because it's denying them equal rights.
So what? Who cares if it isn't traditional? Being traditional is irrelevant to whether or not it should be allowed in a free and equal society.
Congratulations, you've discovered that no one is perfect. That doesn't justify rank bigotry.
Other people getting married doesn't violate your rights.
No one has said you should be forced to do anything -- other than you, who have said that gays should be forced not to marry.
Saying that you do not have the right to deny to another citizen equal access to civil marriage or to other governmental institutions is not violating your rights.
Your rights are utterly inviolate if Jim and Bob get married in a civil ceremony. If, on the other hand, you keep Jim and Bob from getting married in a civil ceremony, you are violating Jim and Bob's rights.
Don't pull this victimization bullshit. You are the one advocating for someone else's rights to be violated, not LGBT equality advocates.
Maybe you do not understand! If you set up your own ST club and one of the rules say you have to come dressed as one of the characters, and if you don't, they can deny you membership. Marriage license is really just a piece of paper. It doesn't validate your love and worthiness for another person. Marriage is really more like government intervention and government being nosy...trying to bully its citizens. It's a government's club! They should just ban it altogether. Problem solved!
Everybody has their own bias and prejudice, but some people like you, who like to take it upon themselves and piss everyone off, force them through hell, and then make yourselves as victims. If some those gay people behave like regular, decent people, even a their grandparents and parents would respect them and accept them for who they are. Not that most parents and grandparents don't! Actually, a lot of them love their children (gay or straight) and only wants what's good for them.
Everybody has their own bias and prejudice, but some people like you, who like to take it upon themselves and piss everyone off, force them through hell, and then make yourselves as victims. If some those gay people behave like regular, decent people, even a their grandparents and parents would respect them and accept them for who they are. Not that most parents and grandparents don't! Actually, a lot of them love their children (gay or straight) and only wants what's good for them.
The choice of apparel at a st club isn't remotely comparable to civil marriage. It's just another form of discrimination just like African Americans not allowed to go to the same schools as Caucasians, or no one but male white land owners being allowed to vote. You can't change any of that as easy as a pair of socks.
Now, the "Club" analogy would work for a religious ceremony, but that's a different topic. Many churches don't recognize any civil marriage, regardless of gay or straight.
And allowing LGBTs to get married isn't forcing you to marry someone of the same gender, so no it does not violate your rights. But again, I'm sure they had the same argument when they desegregated the schools, that it violated the rights of the Caucasians.
Now, the "Club" analogy would work for a religious ceremony, but that's a different topic. Many churches don't recognize any civil marriage, regardless of gay or straight.
And allowing LGBTs to get married isn't forcing you to marry someone of the same gender, so no it does not violate your rights. But again, I'm sure they had the same argument when they desegregated the schools, that it violated the rights of the Caucasians.
And that's fine, because that is a private club and private clubs have the right to deny membership based upon whatever rules they want.
But the governmental is not a private club. It is the common government of all of us, and the 14th Amendment requires that it treat all citizens as equals. Thus, the government does not have the right to deny marriage licenses to one kind of couple but not another.
That's a subjective opinion. Whatever you may think of the worth of a marriage license, it does not change the fact that the 14th Amendment's equal protection under the law clause requires equal access to marriage licenses. Anything else is discrimination.
Um, no. It's not a government intervention or the government being nosy or a government club. It's a civil institution into which people voluntarily enter and voluntarily leave, that's all. And it is also a fundamental right of every citizen to get married if they and their partner so desire, as established in Loving v. Virginia.
Moving from saying that LGBTs should have their right to civil marriage denied to saying that everyone should have their right to civil marriage denied is not a solution to a problem. You're basically saying everyone should be oppressed in order to make sure that LGBTs are still oppressed.
I am not forcing you through hell. I'm not forcing you through anything. I am exercising my First Amendment right to denounce the ideas you are propagating as stereotyping, bigoted, and justifications for oppression.
Nor am I a victim. I am a heterosexual male; no one has victimized me for my sexuality. Rather, they've victimized my friends and family. I'm not a victim. I am what is referred to in the LGBT community as an ally.
Which indeed happens all the time all across America. That you're convinced that all LGBTs are decadent and promiscuous says more about your inability to distinguish between reality and television stereotyping than it does about the LGBT community.
It's one of those things that is really not a right! It's like because somebody created that rules and you have to do it, even though it doesn't make any sense. Except that someone is the government-the big brother! I think the government originally represented the religious groups. It a ridiculous law that allows the government to extend their reach into people's privacy. It's like the driver's license...except we have to keep tract of people in case they decide to do something reckless and dangerous with their vehicles.
I'm being very serious! Go back and reread some of my post!
How is marriage a reach into people's privacy?
So the government can't interfere in people's affairs, but you're suggesting they do exactly that by interfering with everyones right to marry? And this is practical?
You sound like a conspiracy nut. And that's probably a lot milder then what others here would say.
Similar threads
