Quote:
Originally Posted by sigmadiva
I don't agree. How can something get taken away if you never had it in the first place?
If at some point gays did have the right to marry, then it was taken away, okay, I see your point. But, like I said, gays never had the right in the first place.
Yeah, and those states took that law of the books too.
I think you are making an assumption that is not true. Being black in terms of skin pigmentation is very different than being Black by culture.
And no, being black is not a choice (unless you are Michael Jackson  ). I was born with a good deal of pigmentation in my skin as I was born to parents who have a good deal of pigmentation in their skin.
Now, by culture, I do identify with the Black race. But, as we know, you really don't have to be born Black to be Black. Just ask Eminem (?sp).
And btw kstar, whose sock puppet are you? |
Sock puppet? I've been on GC for longer than you. (by 10 days, but regardless...)
You say being black is not a choice, then you say that it is? That doesn't even make sense. Being gay is not a choice, in fact, if you ask most homosexuals, they will tell you that they tried to be straight, but couldn't. The heart loves who it loves.
It doesn't matter if homosexuals had the had the right taken away or denied the right from the beginning, it is their right. Blacks didn't have the right to vote taken away from them, they didn't have it from the beginning, so they shouldn't have been all up in arms about not having the right? I don't think so. Nor did they have the right to marry who they chose, but a black woman fought and had her
innate right recognized. From the decision of Loving -v- Virginia,
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," .... To deny this fundamental freedom ..., is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law... Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person ... resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." Yes, this decision was about interracial marriage, but I don't see how you can argue that interracial marriage is okay, because those people loved each other, and homosexual marriage is not. It is an
innate right to marry who you want, and to deny that seriously makes you seem like a bigot.
Even if the laws were struck down, these people are NOT getting equal protection under the law. They cannot see their partner when they are in the hospital or make medical decisions for them, they cannot see their children if they are not the ones on the adoption papers or the biological parent, they can't adopt in some states. Hate crimes against homosexuals aren't even declared hate crimes in some states, since the laws only cover gender or racially motivated crimes. How is that equal protection?
Now, I have to ask, why can you not see that the struggle for civil rights and equal rights for one group is the same as any other struggle for civil rights? It doesn't matter if the crimes perpetrated against one group were better or worse, they were still crimes. You want to compare gay rights to the Holocaust struggle, I could say that is ridiculous since the Holocaust was about depriving people (including homosexuals, not only jews) of their
life, not their
rights, and the black rights movement of the mid-twentieth century was about
rights.
Separate but equal was used to justify segregation, in this case people are calling for civil unions as opposed to marriage, saying that it is the same thing (equal) but different terminology (separate). You are really saying that you don't see how separate but equal is the same type of struggle as separate but equal?
Threaded Mode
