Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Police on Saturday charged two West Raleigh, North Carolina men with a "crime against nature" for having sex early that morning. Each faces up to two years in prison if convicted of the Class I felony.
Crime against nature? Even for NorthCarolina I find that a little hard to believe.
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but gays are equally allowed to marry someone of the other sex.
Prior to 1963, it was argued that black and white Americans had equal marriage rights; a black person could marry a black person, and a white person could marry a white person, they just could not marry one another.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Crime against nature? Even for NorthCarolina I find that a little hard to believe.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Crime against nature? Even for NorthCarolina I find that a little hard to believe.
"******, don't be here when the sun goes down."
-A sign on disply in my childhood North Carolina hometown. Only done away with in the late '80s-
Especially for North Carolina, it's possible.
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but gays are equally allowed to marry someone of the other sex.
I'll assmume that was a statement made in jest. Unless you choose to ignore the reality between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Police Charge Pair With "Crime Against Nature"
Wow, that's actually worse than you made it sound.
Originally posted by StrangeloveNah, just a correct one. I have stated on several occasions that this fight is not about equal rights for gays. As they exist. If anything it is a fight for equal rights between men and women. Feminists should be all over it, sadly, most are selfish, blind dykes.
That's a disgusting thing to say.
Go libertarians.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Prior to 1963, it was argued that black and white Americans had equal marriage rights; a black person could marry a black person, and a white person could marry a white person, they just could not marry one another.
yes it was. I initially pointed to legal inter-racial marriage as legal precedence supporting gay marriage.
Originally posted by Devil King
I'll assmume that was a statement made in jest. Unless you choose to ignore the reality between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
no...
don't get me wrong, I support gay marriage. However, the issue isn't equality, but rather of definition.
if marriage is legally defined as between a man and a woman, then everyone has equal rights. Yes, the legal definition can cause social inequalities, but the law is being equally applied to everyone.
The liberty and pursuit of happiness point, I conceded, probably is a valid argument for changing the legal definition of marriage, however, as I said earlier, marriage has historically been about the trade and oppression of women and other family alliance/trade issues. There is more of a historical precedence for marriage as man and woman, though modern interpretations of free choice and people marrying for love, probably change that, especially given that whites and blacks can marry now.
Originally posted by Strangelove
That's a disgusting thing to say.
well, this is an unacceptable outrage and other such hyperbole
Originally posted by Bardock42
If anything it is a fight for equal rights between men and women. Feminists should be all over it
Originally posted by inimalist
My personal opinion is that there should be no government involvement in marriage, so if you want to marry your sister or a car or a tree, i couldn't care less
Originally posted by Bardock42
Go libertarians.
Re: California and Gay Marriage
Originally posted by Robtard
[b]Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban
Constitutional initiative drive under way in state to restrict unionsSAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry. [end snip]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24649689
This is good news for Equal Rights. Maybe Utah or Texas will be next. [/B]
Excellent news, but I don't think we should celebrate yet, as the law will likely be overturned.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, just a correct one. I have stated on several occasions that this fight is not about equal rights for gays. As they exist. If anything it is a fight for equal rights between men and women. Feminists should be all over it, sadly, most are selfish, blind dykes.Go libertarians.
We went over this already, I think (I know) you were proven wrong, as it is about equal rights for gays.
Originally posted by RobtardHaha. Right.
We went over this already, I think (I know) you were proven wrong, as it is about equal rights for gays.
It really is not though.
Originally posted by Strangelove
how, exactly?
Gay men have the exact same rights as straight men.
Gay women have the exact same rights as straight women.
Yes, they can't marry who they would prefer to marry. And, yes, that is bad and should be changed. But it is not about gay people being treated equal to straight people. It's about rights for everyone or, as I said, equal rights between men and women. It's really an easy concept.
I understand that what DK is going to say is that they are not equal because they can't marry who they want, and I get that, I am just saying that gays and straights of the same gender do have the same rights and lack thereof, even though the lack hurts only one sexuality, really.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Haha. Right.It really is not though.
Gay men have the exact same rights as straight men.
Gay women have the exact same rights as straight women.
Yes, they can't marry who they would prefer to marry. And, yes, that is bad and should be changed. But it is not about gay people being treated equal to straight people. It's about rights for everyone or, as I said, equal rights between men and women. It's really an easy concept.
I understand that what DK is going to say is that they are not equal because they can't marry who they want, and I get that, I am just saying that gays and straights of the same gender do have the same rights and lack thereof, even though the lack hurts only one sexuality, really.
Interesting perspective. hmm
Makes sense. I am trying but I can't think of why your statement is wrong. I believe that's what inimalist was getting earlier.
Maybe from the perspective of a homosexual, they NOT have equal rights. Relative to heteroseuxuals exercisement of marriage rights, they do NOT have equal rights.
It would appear that Robard and you have discussed this already, so I am probably rehashing old arguments.