Political Crossfire Forums

[StrangerWitCandy]

SavannahMan wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: SavannahMan wrote: No - Constitutional amendments are proof that the battles are ending.
Nope, still just proof that there's a battle, most of which I will admit are going to your side - so far. Just because you're winning doesn't mean you've actually won.

Quote: Want more proof? These referendums aren't even newsworthy anymore because EVERYONE already knows the outcome.
In most cases we can predict the outcome - knowing the depth of prejudice that still exists against homosexuals in our society. That is where things stand at the moment. It is a mistake to assume that the moment is always indicative of what will take place at all times in the future.

Granted - no one can predict the future, but I feel comfortable predicting not in my lifetime and I'm not old. :wink:

just a few years ago, the thought of any kind of marriage for gay couples was unheard of. now we've got civil unions in a few states, and gay marriage in MA, not to mention the numerous other countries that have swiftly accepted gay marriage. i don't know about you but i think thats considerable progress, especially since its almost entirely taken place within this decade

[Sataere]

Personally, I am for gay marriage, because I think that basically, the only major thing that inhibits gay marriage is the belief that a god or higher power regards it as a sin. This is a reason that should have never come about, because the United States has been set up in a way to have the Church separate from the State. Religious people trying to abolish the political union of gay marriage have no right to do so. Any educated person can take a look at how the US is set up, and see that religious beliefs should have little bearing at all on the actions and laws of our country. I think that even though some people may think that gay marriage is immoral, they should at least tolerate it, because no one's asking them to get gay married, and no harm can come from other people making up their minds on their type of lifestyle. Some people agree with this but cause gay marriages to be called Civil Unions. I think that the term 'Civil Union', in regards to gay marriage is disrespectful to those who want to get gay married, because that is putting them at an inferior status to all heterosexual married couples. I think that they should have the same rights and status as all other married people, with no inhibitions on their lifestyles. This is just my opinion.

[F'losrix]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Just a quick note:

Voters this year will be asked to approve proposed amendments limiting marriage to opposite sex-couples in Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee.

And now you can add Virginia to that list.
Idaho has made the list of states where anti-gay marriage amendments will be on the ballot.

[F'losrix]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Just a quick note:

Voters this year will be asked to approve proposed amendments limiting marriage to opposite sex-couples in Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee.

And now you can add Virginia to that list.
Idaho has made the list of states where anti-gay marriage amendments will be on the ballot.
A proposal to ban gay marriage will be on the ballot in Wisconsin in November, too.

[connermt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Chanakya wrote: Why can't there just be a middle ground, thats why I stopped my full support for ultra-conservitive views. Everything in moderation, and moderation in everything.
There can't be a middle ground because the groups opposing gay marriage are well organize, well funded, and totally against any recognition whatsoever - they have no intention of compromising and have said as much. In fact, they're actively trying to roll back existing anti-discrimination laws that protect gay people.

So it's not about marriage - it's about making the lives of gay people as difficult as possible.

Many gay people would be glad to have ANY protections and benefits they can get - including civil unions. But there are little to no serious efforts aimed at providing them. Ultimately, we want equal marriage rights so any compromise that gets made isn't going to be enough to shut us up permanently. Our opponents know that, and it's part of why they won't budge at all - they know that even if they compromise we'll be eventually calling them back to the table to renegotiate and secure more recognition of our rights.

It's a lose/lose situation for both sides.

So it's not about marriage - it's about making the lives of gay people as difficult as possible. <--- EXACTLY

[connermt]

SavannahMan wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: SavannahMan wrote: No - Constitutional amendments are proof that the battles are ending.
Nope, still just proof that there's a battle, most of which I will admit are going to your side - so far. Just because you're winning doesn't mean you've actually won.

Quote: Want more proof? These referendums aren't even newsworthy anymore because EVERYONE already knows the outcome.
In most cases we can predict the outcome - knowing the depth of prejudice that still exists against homosexuals in our society. That is where things stand at the moment. It is a mistake to assume that the moment is always indicative of what will take place at all times in the future.

Granted - no one can predict the future, but I feel comfortable predicting not in my lifetime and I'm not old. :wink:


SavannahMan, what is your major beef (complaint) agaist gay people? Seriously....
I see a lot of your posts (even though they are JAB & RUN posts) with what appears hatred & malice towards gays.