Civil rite denied!
Expected? Shocking? The decision handed down on Tuesday by the California Supreme Court on upholding the same-sex marriage ban takes away rights of homosexual citizens in this country. Don't they pay taxes? Don't they follow laws of the land? Aren't they outstanding citizens? So why was it hard to give them their well earned fundamental right - the right to marry - by virtue of being citizens in a country they live in and support?
Find your soulmate on AfroRomance
Imagine if someone took away your right to marry the person of your choice ... Much as we can't equate this to interracial marriages, can you imagine what would have happened if majority white voters had decided by the proposition to ban interracial marriage?
It is a sad day in America ... Its sad that people can be given the legal and political power to just vaporize other citizens' rights away. :-(
- Love Without Borders: The Beauty of Cultural Diversity in Relationships
- Here’s how to break up with someone respectfully
- Love in the Time of Memes: How Humor Shapes Modern Relationships
- Cross-Cultural Charms: The Science of Interracial Attraction
- Style Unbound: The Fashion Fusion in Interracial Relationships
Related Stories
-
Love on Your Terms: Redefining Your Relationship Story
-
Stepping It Up: Why an Exclusive Relationship Might Be Right for You
-
Does she love me? 8 signs she sees you as more than a friend
-
Emoji Love Languages: Decoding Interracial Relationship Conversations
-
DIY Date Nights: Epic Fails and Unexpected Wins
-
The Top 5 Excuses for Being Too Busy to Date
-
Navigating Sexting: The Interplay of Intimacy and Consent
207 responses to "Civil rite denied!"
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
-
-
homesteader says:Posted: 21 Jun 09
fkoi ; First impressions lead me to emit the first thoughts that come to my mind . Granted the location in which we live is totally different from where others live , Thus allowing a totally different outlook in that which We see happening and as in the Lives of the Gay community . People regardless of their station in Life will be Persecuted by other people Daily even if there is no Reasoning in this difference of opinion . I Praise the Benefits , that We as a couple have gained from coming together at this Date Ting site . We as a Loving Couple / have experienced all of the Daily Strife that comes from being in an Inter-racial Marriage . Alas by Looking at the bright side . All the Bigotry seems to exist only in the minds of Those that only wish to see what - Was -. Knot by the ones who wish to see what Can be . I talked to one of my friends from years past just the other day and at the start of Our Life together / had had many Bad things to say out in the open where others were present to hear / inorder to impress those who still choose to live in the dark ages . We had never lost Our friendship , it was just the case of Him realizing that My way of Life had knot changed at all . Other than I had became Happy again . With time and seeing that I did knot throw unintelligent Comments in return to his less than friendly Remarks . We HAVE once again found a meeting of the minds / Showing Me that indeed people will change with Learning of others Smiles and Happiness in Life . With Positive thoughts of the Future / Knot constant Reminders of a Less Educated time in History when the Greed of a self-proclaimed society chose to enslave others for their own Profit . My thoughts come from a Personal History of how others have Affected my daily ventures / Knot that which I read in books . Thus being which I have actually Witnessed in Seeing how Beautiful Life can be if one Desires " The Brighter Side " I also feel that the Cave Dweller have their Right to Live Exactly how they feel . My first comment on this Blog Topic / Tells it as I have seen Life unfolding in my younger years . I do knot sleep in others Bedrooms / Therefore I have totally no Reason to Tell them how to Arrange their Furniture . That Being their God given Right to a Life of Happiness as they see Fit . " Don't compare your life to others , as you have no Idea what their life is About . "
Reply to this comment -
FearlessCrusader says:Posted: 20 Jun 09Thank you very much for the much-needed perspective, ngbabe. Words of wisdom from a very wise woman...
Reply to this comment -
fkoi says:Posted: 19 Jun 09Homesteader, there are times when I wonder what the heck you are talking about. But then there are times when I wonder the same about me. I have to say though that there are those posts when the pearls you cast before swine are of the highest quality. Keep firing away. I can always sort through and find something that I can use.
Reply to this comment -
homesteader says:Posted: 19 Jun 09
I repeat ; This Topic was about others Rights to the Rite of Marriage . #%#* signing off .
Reply to this comment -
Glock says:Posted: 19 Jun 09
Homesteader, once again, I can't make heads or tails about what you're trying to say. But hey, I'm not doing anything important right now so I guess I waste some more of my time and respond to the parts of your post I can sort of make out. I can remember back a while ago were you got lambasted about your incessant incoherent driveling. I see you haven't stopped. If I was you and married to the wonderful woman you tell us about all the time, I WOULDN'T BE ON A SINGLES SITE!! I would be enjoying my WONDERFUL WIFE!!! But, since you are not me, and since you believe all the things they taught you in government school, perhaps you could use that education and make complete coherent setences, rational statements and maybe break out a dictionary once in a while just to check on a word or two. Now... No, Adam and Eve didn't have a "choice", but they were going to conceive children and God would not have them fornicating without being bound to one another. I speak of the 1700's because I can read. Duh!! Do I really need to respond to that Homesteader? There are many people in this world who speak of history who were not there. David McCullough, one of my favorite biographers speaks very authoritatively about the 1700's but wasn't born until 1932. Should he keep his mouth shut then?? If you're going to criticize me for speaking of things in the past which I was not a part of, then YOU better follow your own advice and never reference the past to illustrate a point! As far as the rest of your rediculous post Homesteader, I have wasted enough of my time responding to yet, another one of your idiotic posts that are so incoherent that's it's almost impossible to understand. Here's a suggestion, when two people are involved in a serious, thought provoking, intelligent discussion that may delve into other areas needed to support a point, stay out. Observe, you may just learn something instead of being the "joe-blow" from down the street that has to butt into every conversation, always making an #%#* of himself.
Reply to this comment -
homesteader says:Posted: 18 Jun 09
Please excuse me the last should read ; So what glock are you talking about ? THANK YOU .
Reply to this comment -
ngbabe says:Posted: 18 Jun 09To Laugh_sailor and Kristent On a previous post you stated "ngbabe - You’re correct in identifying the changing nature of our society: You, as a black woman, would not have been allowed service in many of the southern airports in the 1930’s. I am afraid you would have to use a d/f analogy that I can relate to. You wrongfully assumed as a black woman, I am a direct descendant of slaves. I am afraid I can't relate or be grateful for being allowed access to anything. Like you, I was born and remain a first class citizen in a country where being black was/still the only thing to be. I personally hate it when some whites such as yourself seem eager to use the slavery experience to sort of bring black people back to their place--Next thing I know, you will be telling me to be grateful that your society now allows me to date outside my race. If I were a white woman with similar perspective on this issue, would have used the same line of argument to reason with me? or maybe your intention was not to reason rather,to use what you thought was a humble background to remind me of how grateful I ought to be!!! Sorry to disappoint you but I am not grateful;had I been born and living in the 1930's, I would have still been a first class citizen with access to everything my mind could imagine. For the record, I am against gay marriage, I do not however condone those crazy fanatics out there who simply hate folks b/c of their sexual preference. My policy on gay rights/marriage is that such lifestyles need to remain in the privacy of ones bedroom. No amount of name calling by you or Kristent who labeled me homophobic will change my feelings on this issue. I think it pure ignorant and immature that grown adults can't disagree without resorting to name calling. I challenge you and Kristent to intelligently articulate your arguments without insulting or calling others offensive names
Reply to this comment -
homesteader says:Posted: 18 Jun 09
Thank you glock , I stated Facts / if indeed Adam & Eve were married , it was not a case of Choice . As their were no others to chose from . Maybe if you had studied harder in school , You may have learned what they taught was what they read from books . Written by those that also were knot perfect and made errors in Judgement . Mothers and children also worked the fields together / Thus larger families . These stories you write came out of Books and yet you say " I don't believe everything I learned in school . Half of Knowledge is knowing where to find it / The other half is the Desire to Learn from what you have Found . Maybe , because I thought that I was speaking to others with intelligence . When I missed a few words here and there . I thought that some could read between the Lines . The Bible was also written by Men and Women , WHO TELL STORIES OF WHAT THEY SAW AND HEARD . John D. Rockefeller , believed what he was taught and Earned his money . You talk of things that happened in the 1700's / Like you were there at that time to know - What they were speaking of . In my eyes / To see is to Believe . Your stories that I read , constantly are full of Contrivances of Conjecture This Blog topic was written about the Rite of a Marriage Ceremony that was Denied to a few United States Citizens . And this was in recent time knot a couple hundred years ago . Leaving me to ask what the Constitution has to do with the topic anyhows . This was presented about Gay rights and the word " Slave " was never used in the Question . So what the flock are you talking about ?
Reply to this comment -
Glock says:Posted: 17 Jun 09
Fircatluv: To answer your question (something you failed to do for me) most of what I learned about American government happened AFTER I graduated from our government schools. Government (I mean "public") schools wants the populace ignorant. Sure, I'll check out your websites if you want me to, however, I've dont more reading about our history than just your 3 websites. Your first comment about blacks being counted as fractions demonstrates how inaccurate these websites (or your sources) can be. Blacks were not counted as fractions or (3/5's as the constitution states) because they were worth less, it was for apportioning money to the states. With the many slaves in the south, the north felt that an unfair amount of money would be going to the south. The south actually wanted blacks to count as whole, not the so-called enlightened north. Woman stated home and raised the kids because the husbands were out farming. The were not considered "insignificant". Maybe in "modern" terms their status might be considered that but not then. If you ever had a chance to read some of the letters written by the founders to their wives, you would know this. They held their wives in very high regard. And yes I will agree with you that the founders were very concerned about the uneducated involved in the legislative or governmental process. They knew that people who were not knowledgable about our new form of government, a republic, would destroy it. There are two people who's quotes I am trying to remember that illustrate this. One is from Ben Franklin who said when asked after the signing of the constitution what kind of government did we get, "A republic, if you can keep it." The other quote from Thomas Jefferson relates to the success of a republic relying on an informed and knowledgable people. The exact quote escapes me at the moment (I'll have to find it.) Bottom line is we did NOT create a democracy (mob rules) that was exactly what they were trying to avoid, but rather a republic in which the wishes of the majority would not trample on the minority (yes I'm fully aware of the hypocrisy of the founders talking about minority rights and owning slaves, and I am also fully aware that the abolishen of slavery was addressed and quashed in order to get a constitution signed. You are wrong about the "We the People" preamble being for the "oligarchy" at the time. It was written at the last moment by Gouverneur Morris from Pennsylvania. It was not proposed or discussed at the convention center. If the system was built for the "elite", they really screwed that up because instantaniously, people who were motivated started climbing the ladder to success. For example, John D. Rockefeller came from very humble beginnings and became the richest man in the world. And no, I don't believe everything I learned in school.
Reply to this comment -
Glock says:Posted: 17 Jun 09
I see homesteader that stupidity still runs rampant in your statements. I know you're trying to make a point, but it would take a psychiatrist to figure out what the heck you're trying to say. I've given up long ago on trying decipher your posts.
Reply to this comment -
firecatluv says:Posted: 17 Jun 09Glock- ??? wasn't this learned back in highschool civics? If you forgot, you really can google this stuf. The founding fathers made blacks fractions of people, women insignificant, and worried about the uneducated masses ruining the legislative process. Native americans and other minorities wasn't even on their radar. "We the people", was a statement made only for the oligarchy of the time. They didn't even consider women and minorities, as they couldn’t even fathom anyone arguing that property would have inalienable rights. The poor were only represented in 1/2 the congressional branch and the founding fathers argued over even giving them this . While the poor was represented in the house, they still couldn't vote. Only Property owners (i.e. the wealthy) was allowed to vote, be nominated to the judicial branch, serve in the executive branch, or serve in the senate. Which means only 10-15% of the population (dep on your source) were allowed to vote or participate. It was a system that was built for the elite and only through the last century has the original premise been molded into a more democratic process. http://www.enotes.com/government-checks-balances/historic-roots-legislative-branch http://www.progress.org/2004/vote28.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States aruging for the rights of women, minorities & the poor to bigots back then is as futile as aruging for gay rights to bigots right now.
Reply to this comment -
Glock says:Posted: 16 Jun 09
Nope it's the same one. Question, can you tell what article in the constitution it says "Only white wealthy men have the right to participate in law making"? And yes, God performed the first marriage. And yes it does matter.
Reply to this comment -
homesteader says:Posted: 16 Jun 09
Adam & Eve were Commonlaw , they had no Choice of others to Marry / they were the only two created . Therefore no Ceremony of Marriage . No courthouse to issue Marriage certificate or store records , no witnesses or Best man and Maid of Honor / flower girl . Just a snake to eat bugs off apple tree , Hehe . Then thousands of years later , people to write of that which they never actually saw happen . Heresay , rumors and conjecture in it's earliest form . Gays already maintain that Rite as per # 3 / Websters Dictionary - Stating ; Any Close Union . The United States of America was build on the Platform of Freedom of Choice and Freedom of Repression of others . The Bill of Rights is Similar to the Bible in that each Interprets what they read in their own way . Amen
Reply to this comment -
firecatluv says:Posted: 16 Jun 09
glock- well maybe YOUR constitution isn't a work in progress, but MINE is. YOUR constitution, stated that only white wealthy men had the right to participate in law making, MY constitution has been admended to grant ME equal rights. ;P So god performed the first marriage? What was that about 6000 years ago when the earth was created? Anyway it doesn't matter, as a constitutional champion, you should know that should have no bearings on governmental decisions. so bringing this up matters only to the people who believe it, and no one else. takinitall- well said!
Reply to this comment -
coreyr says:Posted: 15 Jun 09
Discrimination yes, discrimination just because I don't like you..? Of course not. If I think anal copulation between two men should be embraced as a healthy, happy societal norm I'm the only one enlightened? I think not. So "We the People" have the right to choose the course of our own society but lets not spin the issue into "Civil rights denied". Black people never had a choice....gay behavior although prevalent does not equate to normal or unavoidable. It is a mental and psychological mindset. Gays themselves never called upon marriage until sodomy laws were overturned in Lawrence vs. Texas. Marriage by definition equals two opposite sexes. Gay relationships have never equaled two opposite sexes. Its the same as trying to say I was born black even though I'm whiter than Kevin Bacon. You can't be something you're not. After gay marriage gets shoved down our necks, we'll be calling gay men by their "married" alter egos "...this is Nancy, he will be your personal trainer today..." Can't wait.
Reply to this comment -
FearlessCrusader says:Posted: 14 Jun 09
Glock, that was very good. You hit the nail on the head and drove it right on through the board. Keep up the good work! Takintail, if there's anything worse than hypocrital Christians, it's knuckleheads who make false accusations against others. You would probably consider me one who shuns gay people (I'm friendly with some of them and I believe they should have the same rights as others, but I cannot approve of their sin); however, I never had premarital sex so you have lost your bet. Pay up. Just becaue you do it doesn't mean everybody does it.
Reply to this comment -
Angie79 says:Posted: 14 Jun 09
(Do I really want to get involved in this mess of a discussion?) How about we all agree to just disagree? Arguing will get us no where, and in the end I'm still going to hold my beliefs and values just the same as I did when I entered this discussion (and I do not agree with gay marriage--I have the right to believe what I want to). If we can't "discuss" this without being offensive to others, then let's drop it!!! (My grammar may be off--I don't care.)
Reply to this comment -
malamo says:Posted: 14 Jun 09Kristent,i think life is how you take it,history says we descover who we are by trieng a lot of different things(talents)but i dont see any reason why someone can be against others,nevertheless gay is said to be life in another world.
Reply to this comment -
ed_36 says:Posted: 14 Jun 09actually its a good thing that they are denied to get married.. 1 thing is that it is an abomination. it is not normal living, and it is wrong. and they way it is, is that if they want rights then they need to return to a normal straight life style. there is no real happiness in it and one main reason they do it is just because it is the oposite of what God says. to Love God & hate sin. its not the people that is to be hated, it is the sin and the wicked lifestyle. but , thats all thier is to say about it. but they like everyone will stand at the judgment and be accountable for thier themselves, but if they want to live that way thats thier bisuness but the consequences will be not good
Reply to this comment -
takinitall says:Posted: 13 Jun 09You know as a Black female, I am amazed and embarrassed at the responses from the other Black women. We have a huge epidemic of down low/ closet gay men and our community who are afraid to come out because of homophobic people. If we continue to push people into the closet by sending the message of hate, we will continue to have more straight women end up with AIDS/ HIV and other problems because we won't allow people to be themselves. Besides for you proclaimed Christians, GOD is the only one who can judge us. GOD also says all sin is created equal and no one is without sin. I'm willing to bet that every one of you who shun gay people, are having pre marital sex yourself. There's nothing worse than hypocritical Christains. Get a life and a man of your own. You can't control the life of others. Gay people work, pay taxes, adopt children and contribute just as much to society as straight people do. Bottom line is Get Over It! Denying their right to marriage is not going to stop them from being gay.
Reply to this comment -
Glock says:Posted: 13 Jun 09
HOLY COW!! Where do I begin?? I will try my best to address all the points, questions and assertions made toward me, so if I leave one out or forget one it wasn't intentional. Remind me that I didn't address something and I'll fix it. I believe good discussion are not only good, but very important. Here goes... FIRECATLUV: Yes, marriage has it's origin in religion. God performed the first marriage. And the Bible is a history book. Now if you want to paint me as some religious nut for saying that, I'm guilty as charged. The Constitution is NOT a living document or a "work in progress" as you say. The Constitution was written to put limits on the federal government describe what responsibilities the government has. The constitution has it's roots in natural law, believing that people have inherent rights just being a human being. As far as the rest of you post, I have know idea if it's directed to me or what you're trying to say. LAUGH_SAILOR: Remember just 30 years ago if you were gay, you didn't make it public knowledge. More so if you were a public figure or celebrity. Now, not only do public figures and celebrities make it public knowledge, it enhances their careers! So, even though polygamy is illegal and looked down upon now, who knows if that community will demand it's "rights" in the future based on what happens today with gays. Never underestimate the power of the media. The media has had a tremendous influence in shaping public opinion on gay "rights" and gay "marriage" to the point that now if you don't support gay "rights" you're a "bigot" or "homophobe". TALLNWHITE1: Your previous post you said that we live in a "Republic with a democratic government, therefor majority rules." That is partially correct. We live in a republic, that part is correct. However the reason we live in a republic is so that the majority would NOT dictate. Majority rule IS a democracy. With a democracy you have the will of the majority deciding what rights the minority have. That is not a republic. If we had a democracy and majority rules, there would be no need whatsoever for a constitution, period because "majority rules". We hear politicians speak very frequently about "The American People want...", they are referring to a democracy. These same people know that the constitutions does not allow them to do the many things they propose but instead rely on Americans ignorance about how government is run and what the constitution is for. As far as "naming you one society that has florished or survived because of consent of gay marriage". Where did I make that assertion? I didn't. I don't believe America will either. And again, where did I say anything about the seperation of church and state in the Constitution? I don't feel badly, in fact I know the term "seperation of church and state" came from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Connecticut Baptist Association and has nothing to do with the constitution. Well let me know if I didn't address something that someone felt I didn't address.
Reply to this comment -
homesteader says:Posted: 13 Jun 09
Freedom of Choice / Love it or Leave it . Some Win / Some Lose . But you gotta play the Game . I may knot be correct to a Few - Alas , We found Success here on this site . The Right to Happiness . I vote every Election / Do you ?
Reply to this comment -
Curious says:Posted: 13 Jun 09Firecatluv and all, Thank you for your answers, excluding the condascending comments. I never stated anywhere in my post that African-Americans did not make this comparison. However, one can deduct from reputable sources (Washington Post & Los Angeles Times), not from Wikipedia, that many African-Americans would not correlate being gay to the struggles of African-Americans from the voting outcomes. Please read the links below. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html Since I am a native Californian, you are unaware of many things that have taken place in my state to warrant such questions. I will say this though that I never saw one advertisement that compared being gay to any other ethnic group's struggles. Furthermore, my original-creative thought is that Proposition 8 will be eliminated in a higher court. With that said, you may see opening the door for any sexual preference minority group for marriage as hypothetical, but it will come down the pipeline sooner or later. I will venture to say in my opinion if that doesn't work then the next move will be the marriage band wagon since any sexual preference minority group is entitled to their Civil Rights. Here is an example: http://www.nambla.org/welcome.htm The question is will you be advocating for those groups as well - polygamists, pedophiles, bestiality, etc.?
Reply to this comment -
tallnwhite1 says:Posted: 12 Jun 09To Glock I never said we live in a Democracy. I specifically stated that we live in a Republic with a Democratic form of Government. However if majority does not rule (as you stated) then who elects our government officials? How are the outcome of elections determined? I think you might be referring to the popular vs electoral vote. But if majority does not rule then how are bills passed in congress if not by a majority rule? As for the Constitution you are partly corrrect. It does not state specifically support or denying of gay marriage. Nor would it since the overwhelming majority of Americans were practicing Christians during the time of the writing. To the best of my knowledge ALL of the signers of the Constitution were Christians. So the deviancy of gay marriage and the ills on society that would result from it would not even be an issue. Again name one society in history that has flourished or survived with government and public consent of homesexuality? And finally, again, where in the Constitution does it state of a seperation of Church and state? Do not feel bad though. I used to drive my more highly educated, open-minded, liberal college professors crazy when they could not answer that one! Of course I can talk and explain and cite context after context to no avail. The fact of the matter is that we are living in a selective-socialistic welfare state that has no "moral center" anymore. As long as it is "politically correct" and popular. Anything goes.......until we eventually implode in the near future since we learn nothing from history.
Reply to this comment -
tallnwhite1 says:Posted: 12 Jun 09
To Sailor-time to get schooled once again. ALL of the modern society's that you mention previously. Japan, China etc. DO NOT openly endorse homesexual marriage. Nor does their individual governments "endorse and promote" the practice of a homesexual lifestyle. As for Ancient Rome, Greece, Carthage, Mesopotamia. They have all been destroyed and have been gone for thousands of years. Most have ceased to exist not from neighboring countries but from their very own systems. As for the Constitution and the united States in general. There is a dirty little secret to the founding of America. It was founded primarily by Christian fundamentalists. Quakers, Mononites, Catholics, Evangelicals etc. all came to America in order to practice religious freedom which was openly endorsed by the US government. Again, no where in the Constitution does it call for a seperation of Church and state. If you need more documentation about the role of religion in the US. Read the Getttysburg Address, Washington's Farewell Address, or just look at the top of a dollar bill in your pocket. Mine says "In God we trust". Not "in a secular government we trust". You also did not address the wonderful, oppressed tolerant, secular homesexual groups that burned several Mormoun churches in California after the Prop 8 vote.
Reply to this comment -
hazelpride says:Posted: 12 Jun 09
Glock I think you summed it all up, and I like your opinion than those being put across. Somehow Laugh_sailor just made it hard to enjoy the debate, that is my view.
Reply to this comment -
laugh_sailor says:Posted: 12 Jun 09
Glock - You're quite right: I don't think there's a Constitutional barrier to further permutations of marriage. It is philosophically, as you mention, a very slippery slope and in a purely philosophical light, I don't think there's a strong case to be made against other permutations as a class of marriage (There are, though, strong cases to be made by individual type.): Each is unique to a great extent and we haven't allowed a particular class of marriages - Just the most acceptable types, one by one. Your comparison between homosexual and interracial marriage/relationships philosophically is interesting and I suspect it's implied from one's sexual/interracial orientation: A gay racist might loathe interracial heterosexual marriage, ardently support gay intraracial marriage and be completely conflicted at the thought of a gay interracial marriage. You're quite right in pointing out the essential religious beginnings of marriage, as well, though it's transcended religion quite some time ago, while retaining many of the old trappings and in many cases is still a religious rite. As I mentioned, I think the limits are social: There's a near-unanimous dislike of polygamy, so I don't think it will fly, politically (As an example, electing supreme court justices is essentially a political process.). I think the same may be said of other marriage types and though I dearly love my sailboats, sadly I don't think I'll ever be allowed to legally marry them. Thanks for your thoughtful views!
Reply to this comment -
-
firecatluv says:Posted: 12 Jun 09
Laugh sailor- :) You are more than welcome to use it. Bigots always have to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming. Five states have gay marriage, several more recognize civil unions, other countries have allowed it for a while. And guess what, the sky hasn’t fallen. But they don’t see that, they are too scared to educate themselves, too scared to learn about the world. Because you see, if they do, then they have to admit their bigotry. And that’s very, very hard. So they will rationalize, put up strawmen, throw a red herring or two, anything to keep them from facing the ugly truth about themselves. Some will wise up, most never will. But who cares, the dinosaurs of the old eventually die outand if the polls are any indicator of the future, its only a matter of time before kids 20 years from now will be asking “what was the big deal again?” Curious 1. They compare it to interracial marriages which affects not just AA. They draw similarities to interracial marriages because Loving vs Virgina was a case where the supreme court ruled that marriage was a right. They also compare it to any civil rights argument, AA aren’t the only minorities in this country. And you are wrong about AA not comparing it, there are many of us libby AA that do. Do you have any facts to back up a claim that AA don’t compare it to the civil rights struggle. Please give me some websites that prove such a statement, you know one not from wiki. This also answers #2 for #3, why stop there? Why not ask if we are going to let chickens get married to dolphins, martians to butterflies, and ducks to snakes? that’s the slippery slope argument right? here's the thing, if you are going to bring up random hypothetical situations that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, i say get creative! Glock marriage is only a religious institution? My God man, pick up a history book! AND the constitution is a work in progress, it was never made to be the end all be all. If it was, we sure as h'll wouldn't have had 27 amendments in less than 250 years! What are we averaging an amendment every 8 or 9 years?! Lol! So gays can't get married because some bigot (who never picked up peer reviewed literature on the subject) thinks it not natural. It would be pretty hypocritical if the people that make this claim did anything that wasn't natural. For example: like get medical treatment or type on the magic box hooked up to the "internets" These poor, poor souls prob don't drive cars, or ride in boats or fly in planes. they don't own guns, oeat processed foods, or have central heat and air! In fact if you guys meet one of these rare natural humans running around feral please let me know cuz i know plenty of scientists that will love to put such creatures in cages and research them! Me being one of them!
Reply to this comment -
Glock says:Posted: 11 Jun 09
Tallnwhite, I have to disagree with your statement about there being nothing in the Constitution about homosexuals having the right to marry. Although the constitution does not say "specifically" that they have a right to it, it does not deny it either. The Constitution is a LIMIT on the power of the federal government. It describes the specific duties the federal government is allowed to do, although nobody would ever know that today. I would invite you to read the 9th and 10th amendments. Also, America is not a democracy where majority rules, again, nobody would know that based on what goes on today. It's a republic not a democracy. There is a huge difference. Laugh_Sailor, I have to admit, I am not in favor of gays marrying nor approve of gay lifestyle. However, that being said, if the issue of gay marriage is the discussion, than why not polygamy? Or any other "alternative" lifestyle between consenting adults? We are afforded equal protection under our constitution (at least are supposed to) and if gays will be allowed to marry, then it's only a matter of time before other lifestyle will demand their day in court as well. This is a huge slippery slope. Yes I agree that blacks and whites are allowed to marry today. But lets remember too that marriage is a religious issue originating from the judeo-christian arena. God did not approve of homosexual relationships although it happened in biblical times, as well as the empires and cultures you mentioned. Simply put, you can't stop it. I do however put "interracial" marriage in a diffferent catagory altogether than homosexuals relationships. And I think the most ardent racist would as well. Even many who condone gays being allowed to marry I think would have the opinion that it's just not natural. But of course the degradation of society follows those who life their lives with no regard with what is decent and respectful public and private behavior. Just my opinion.
Reply to this comment -
Curious says:Posted: 11 Jun 09
Girlstar 7 and all, I would like to know your opinions to these questions: 1. Why is it the people that always try to compare African-American struggles to being gay are in fact mostly not African-American people? 2. Why didn't the gay movement compare their struggles and/or equate them to other ethnic groups' struggles like the Holocaust, Japanese Internment Camps, and other discriminatory events? 3. If gay marriage is overturned in the U.S. Supreme Court, will the same people advocating for gay marriage also advocate for pedophiles, bestiality, and any other sexual orientation minority group to marry who they love? I am interested in all opinions. Please do not recite anything from Wikipedia because it is not 100% accurate since it is an online collaboration.
Reply to this comment -
Member says:Posted: 10 Jun 09
Thanks for posting, I'll definitely be subscribing to your blog.
Reply to this comment -
laugh_sailor says:Posted: 10 Jun 09
Kristent - Aw, thank you! Send me a note and let's elope. Thanks for your informative posts - I've enjoyed learning from you and am sure we'll laugh at the contrived pettiness of these bigots while we revel in nature's beauty, cruising the seven seas. Maybe not - these bigots are causing a lot of completely unnecessary pain. Firecatluv - I love your saying "Education shatters ignorance. It is a bigot's kryptonite." May I forever quote you, please? Thank you for your insights - I'm happily enlightened. One sailor's spinach is another's kryptonite, eh? I sadly will have to choose between you and Kristent because I choose not to have a biblical household of more than one wife, married with a backwoods conservative Christian minister. Thank you also for your sensible history of Afro American homophobia - I've read about the importance slavers attach to breeding, of course. I'm glad you brought up current African slavery - Worldwide, slavery's on the rise and tragically, not many realize that (In Sudan, the same Arabians are collecting slaves from conflicts between African tribes, still.). Your enumeration of the mortality of gay bashing is also quite sobering. It's all simply awful and more so because our societies are so blind to history. Girlstar7 - "'Separation of church and state' is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other." This is from Wikipedia, speaking of our Constitution, which is the foundation of United States law. If you check out any of the links I've provided, you can see for yourself. The actual words in our constitution are: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" You have repeatedly mistaken this fundamental principle of our government - We have a secular government with strong protections "from religious persecution" - Not the other way around. Rather than continue to look silly stating something that's not true and is common knowledge, please look up the links I've given to our Constitution and take five minutes to read about it. I have taken care to provide well-accepted, accurate and easily-understood explanations of the concepts I've spoken of, here. tallnwhite1 - The following highly successful civilizations, empires and countries have flourished under open gay and lesbian citizenship: Rome, All the Greek city-states, Carthage, Egypt, Crete, Turk, Ottoman, all the mesopotamian city-states, many native tribes worldwide (Offhand, I can't think of any that are/were homophobic.), Mongol, India, China, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, Viet Nam, Cambodia and if either of us researched, we'd come up with a host more. Kindly read my previous posts for an accurate understanding of U.S. civil rights law. The gay community, consisting of people of all kinds, probably is more united on one stance than any other and that is for people to just let them be and treat them like anyone else. Your gay bashing is really quite rude, offensive and out of place. No one believes for an instant that you're persecuted as you claim. I am certainly not and I am also tall and white. Do people really think that publicly bullying on a dating site will get them attractive, happy mates and fulfilling romances? "Jane and I met on this dating site - She was gay-bashing and I fell in love with her bitter, narrow-minded, conceitful state of denial right then. It's what our romance is all about." What kind of friend and quality of thought does this attitude bring to life? Wake up - It's the 21st Century and it's not ok to behave like this in public. Take all that negative energy and do something positive and happy with it, instead - Go have a playful picnic with one of the wonderful people here... with any but firecatluv and kristent - We're going to have a religiously-sanctioned polygamous marriage. Glock - Good to see you again! You've raised a very good against gay marriage: First gays, then polygamists? Where do we stop? My answer is that it's a process we've already started on: Blacks can marry and blacks and whites can marry and now gays are slowly gaining that recognition. Polygamists have been roundly defeated in the courts of law and public opinion and I don't see that changing - Do you? I guess firecatluv, kristent and I will have to marry in a secretly-sanctioned, backwoods, fundamental-Christian wedding. Bummer.
Reply to this comment -
kristent says:Posted: 10 Jun 09
Girlstar, in many circles Spaniards are considered latin and South Africa, I'm pretty sure, IS IN AFRICA. Thus far I have been pretty respectful of your opinion even though I believe it to be wrong. I have not "attacked" your religion, though I could combat your arguments with religious and biblical counterattacks, it would just be irrelevant to the law. I will keep my opinions on the sinfulness of your lifestyle to myself, and I would also like to point out that I have never insulted you or any of the other breeders posting hateful comments on this discussion. I think this is going to be my last post of this thread. I, laugh_sailor, and others have pretty much summed up the entirety of the case for equal marriage rights. Honestly I don't see any more productive discourse coming from these posts, so I think it's best if I just move on. Good luck to you, and may you always be treated as you treat others. ~Maximum Respect everybody.
Reply to this comment -
-
tallnwhite1 says:Posted: 09 Jun 09
Gay people's "Civil Rights" were not violated. First it does not state anywhere in the Constitution that homosexuals have a "right" to marry. We live in a Republic with a Democratic form of government. Therefore majority rules. The majority of citizens in California voted against homesexual marriage. The decision has been made. On a non-legal note. Homesexuality is not healthy for society. Marriage between a man and women is the foundation of any society. Nowhere in history has a society thrived, much less even survived under legislation and approved consent of homesexuality in public affairs. In the US and western world the "homesexual agends" is a radical militant one at best. Several Mormon churches were burned and people were attacked as a result of Prop. 8 by members of various homesexual organized movements. The homesexual agends is to "force" by any means necessary there will upon people. Most of the homesexual groups websites openly advocate this type of behavior. The objective is if anyone dares to resist the "gay agenda" they are to be punished with public opionion. Anyone who dares critize them is to be labeled "racist", "homaphobic" and "sexist" while denying so called "civil rights". Homesexuals can vote, worship, congregate, enjoy free speeech, set up special college scholarships and enact special legislation protecting them. What they do not have the right to do is "force feed" their perverted agenda against people and try to "intimidate" people who disagree with them. Open displays of deviant, unatural behavior that is offensive to most poeple should not be tolerated. Maybe one day the "gay movement" will treat other people the way that they themselves want to be treated. But I personally am not going to hold my breath waiting.......
Reply to this comment -
homesteader says:Posted: 09 Jun 09
Today , I would like Propose a vote ; How many Desire to live with History repeated daily on Blogs . How many Desire to live in the Present day world with Prosperity . How many Desire to look into the Marvelous Future of Change . As in the case of my Wife and I meeting on this site just two years ago and taking the vows of Marriage .
Reply to this comment -
homesteader says:Posted: 09 Jun 09
I graduated high school in 1966 . What people did in 1967 was what they did in 1967 . That was 42 years ago . Most have learned from their mistakes and looked forward to building a more productive Future for themselves and their families . It is now 2009 and what my Wife and I did was Celebrate our second year of Marriage . My third birthday Celebration as Husband and Wife . There in my eyes are still too many on these Blogs / who still Desire to live as people did in the Last Millienium . History teachers and Scientists , we already many moons ago as well as the many others that read these blog topics , received our Learning Degrees . Most likely . Grow up this world has changed . Scholars write of the Past , Real people live in the Present and look forward to the better times ahead in the Future . Move forward from the mistakes of the past / change has Happened - try to live with it . This site helped Us to come together as One . Enjoy Today , put them books back on the shelf . Look to the Sun rise in the East . That my friends will never change .
Reply to this comment -
homesteader says:Posted: 09 Jun 09
We understand one Fact in life and that is all people are born Naked / Disprove this Fact with a bunch of Scientists that say they know who will be born otherwise . What " Style " of life one shall live is Personal choice . Were you; laugh_ sailor born on a sailing vessel ? glock on the other hand in his first sentence states that he is against Gay marriage and also says " and I think that if someone wants to marry to someone of the same sex, it should be allowed " showing how easy it is to set on the middle of the top of the fence without falling off .
Reply to this comment -
firecatluv says:Posted: 09 Jun 09
Laugh sailor, well written, but those who should read it WONT read it. These people are so blinded by their prejudices that they have become such a perfect example of rationalization; so much in fact that Freud is probably gleaming at his genius as he sits in heaven. There is plenty of information out there for those who care to catch up to the 21st century. So I didn’t elaborate on my comment because, If they haven’t educated themselves yet , they aren’t going to do now. Education shatters ignorance. It is a bigot’s kryptonite so they will stay, far, far, far away from it. “I’m standing up traditional marriage,” is nothing but baseless rhetoric that is being thrown around the political scene nowadays. But if you talk to someone about what that really means, they have absolute no clue what it means. They don’t know what “traditional marriage” stands for, not historically and defiantly not biblically. (If you are black in this country you shouldn’t even worry about going to the court house, because traditionally all we had to do was jump over a broom stick and THERE YA GO! ) Historically marriage has been used to preserve a class system, securing property, etc. And guess what? For those who know how to google, gay marriages have occurred in history. Biblically it was okay to get married to your family members, or sell off your pubescent daughter to a old perve who already had other wives. So I don’t know WHY anyone would want to uphold that. Oh heres another one: “I can’t stand when people compare gay rights to black rights, we had it worse (waaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh) ” ummmmmm PETTY much??? An injustice is an injustice no matter what form it takes on. Its ridiculous to sit there and try to take a body count. Blacks were killed mutilated and abused because of white people ancestors (and African ancestors that sold them out. Btw for all those who’ve never been to Africa, you should go sometime they still do it) for over 600 years. And guess what? It was JUSTIFIED because of tradition and the bible. To go against it, as the pope of the 1450s said when he granted it, was to go against God. After all weren’t Africans just were heathens and non believers? (Ironically after stuffing the bible down the throats of illiterate “heathen” slaves, they still didn’t release them. When slave trade was deemed illegal, homophobia in African Americans was nicely seeded there by slave masters who freed their slaves might not breed like they should. After all these years, and its surprising how many people don’t even know that link either.) But lets go back to the several centuries years of slavery. I mean that was pretty bad, right? Well how about the thousands of years of killing, mutilation, and abuse that went against gays? How about its 2009 and they are still being ostracized in the “Land of the Free”. Homophobia was sentiment that was founded by ignoramuses that didn’t know the earth was round and the earth rotated around the sun. As for body count, they estimated Hitler (estimated to being gay himself) killed more gays in concentration camps than white supremacist groups killed blacks in America. Bet you didn’t know that. During the civil rights moment, minorities, women and gays marched together for equal rights. The evangelical movement (the anti-everything movement of the 60s & 70s) were the antithesis of what these groups of the boycotted. They opposed civil rights, and we all stood together in a rainbow coalition to combat such evil. It’s sad to see many blacks forgetting this history. After we stood tighter then, its unfortunate for me to see my people standing on the same side of the BS argument with the modernized “dixiecrats” “But . . . But it’s morally wrong!” Only according to your morals and in the United States of America you can NOT force your morals on another. You can’t abridge their freedoms. Because marriage is a RIGHT. These same people sit there as child RAPISTS sitting in prison are getting married on our tax dollars but they find no problem with that. But the when gays down the street who’s tax dollars are also supporting these killers and murders want to get married, now you don’t want to let them? Amazingly how morality turns off and on like a light switch! In a country that allows priest pedophiles to walk around scott-free after abusing children, we barely bat an eye. We don’t put petitions on ballots or ostracize perverted priests. After all they are men of the cloth! It would be Blasphemy! But when a gay wants to get married (or heaven forbid serve in the military!) then all the bigots come out in droves. My questions to the Christians are: When this ruling came down, and people were crying did you lend them your shoulder? What Christian thing did you do to help your brothers and sisters to help them feel better? What and support did you give to them? (Looks like some people need to review the Sermon on the Mount, huh?) Let me guess, you did nothing. You sat and took secret joy in the misery of others and had the nerve to do it in Jesus’s name. Pathetic.
Reply to this comment -
Girlstar7 says:Posted: 09 Jun 09
laugh_sailor: Excuse me sir, please tell me how on earth can you compare homosexuals to an interrace married couple in 1967. There no comparison what so ever!. Tolerant of their personal choice to choose I agree. Feel like they deserve the same rights of marriage as myself and other heterosexual couples that are in the right of God's law for man and woman to be a holy and legal union?... I don't think so! I wish everyone would stop trying to force us with this nonsense and unnatural union with a crazy guilt trip. Using the civil rights movement and interrace couples as the same thing. Please do not insult us or God up above with that foolishness!. Give me a break.Yes on Prop 8 again and again..
Reply to this comment -
Girlstar7 says:Posted: 09 Jun 09
Kristent: My dear let's be realistic about the countries that support Gay Marriage!. Non of them are Latin, Africa, India, Carribean, Haiti. Cuba Dominican Republic or any country where the people are of color. So waht does that tell you?.Europeans only tolerate this non sense for total media and fear purposes. Believe me behind closed doors they are praying as we did in California, yes on prop 8 agagin!!!. Gay marriage is unnatural and ungodly in every thought, process know to mankind. You or anyone can not remake or reprint God's law and will for manking, period!!. And when this country was founded God was the center piece of this country. Since everyone wants to be free to choose, that is why this country is where it is today. Gone into a major diaster. When you take god out of a nation or a people, you welcome the things of the world!. WHEN YOU TAKE GOD'S WILL OUT OF IT'S NATURAL INTENT YOU HAVE WHAT YOU HAVE TODAY... FIGTURE THAT ONE OUT?. Humans can try and do all that we want, but? we all have to stand before god-jesus-and the holy ghost in judgement. Which master will you be trying to serving?. God or the world (devil). I choose to stick with a known winner, God. So that's my stand on that! Have a blessed day...
Reply to this comment -
-
laugh_sailor says:Posted: 08 Jun 09
Was it right to be denied the right to marry interracially, in the United States, until 1967? I don't think there's anyone reading this who would think it was. The issue now is the same for another minority group: Gays. The question is one of empathy and humanity: Can you put yourself in someone else's shoes? How would you want to be treated? Can you honor and respect and defend someone who does not agree with you? As I've shown, the United States was founded on the principle that we have intrinsic worth and that our union is greater than the sum of ourselves - Our strength comes from our dignity and respect. It's why no one wants to live in North Korea and so many want to immigrate here. It's also why Obama's foreign policies are so successful, so quickly where Bush Jr.'s failed miserably. Bush ran roughshod over others and Obama treats them respectfully - More than that, he listens and incorporates their input in his policies and gives them credit, too. ngbabe - You're correct in identifying the changing nature of our society: You, as a black woman, would not have been allowed service in many of the southern airports in the 1930's. I am so glad that our society has become so much more accepting and understanding of others that no one thinks twice about you in an airport. We have not, however, as a society, accepted gays as freely as blacks, yet and your reaction to gays kissing and making out in the airport is typical. Would you have had the same reaction if it was a man and a woman? Their behavior is upsetting to both of us because it's lacking in respect for others and I wouldn't care if it was gay or straight behavior - I'd be peeved, just the same, at the lack of decorum, while understandingd their joy in being reunited. At some time, we've got to teach our kids about race and sexual relations, respect and tolerance in relation to our society and you have a great opportunity to do so, in this. There are many gays who would be offended by that behavior, as well - Doubly so, because they know they have to show themselves to be the best citizens so they aren't discriminated against. I'm sure that as a black and as a woman, you can relate to that. As firecatluv pointed out a couple posts above you but did not go into detail on, the U. S. Supreme Court decided that in the case of Loving v. Virginia (This was 1967!), that marriage is legal between people of different races in the United States. Until then, several states were holding out against that and marriage between usually blacks and whites was illegal. California only let blacks and whites marry in 1948 and has consistently been one of the most liberal states. Marriage has historically been used as a tool for many religious, social and political reasons, with examples of forcing, selling, prohibiting, annulling, suspending, punishing, jailing, lynching, murdering and pretty much any kind of interference that's possible. Sound familiar? This kind of behavior's been applied to gays and blacks and... well, anyone who isn't like us. For those who claim that sexual orientation is a "lifestyle," please note that those who claim this have not a shred of scientific evidence for the claim, no experience being gay and no medical or scientific expertise in which they base this false claim. It's simply a justification for bigotry. You can easily discover the truth of this by doing two things: (1) Ask a gay person if their sexual orientation is just a personal preference or something they are biologically driven to do. (2) Ask the same and look within yourself, if you're straight. I'm entirely heterosexual and just as my sexual orientation is not anything I can change or would want to, yours and theirs isn't, either. We're born with that wired into our brains. There are a host of articles and studies in mainstream popular medical science periodicals proving this beyond question. Here's a good place to start, with many excellent, accredited references: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/253/5023/1034 The idea of imposing your religious views on someone else is the cause of much strife in our world. It's almost entirely the cause of the problems in the Middle East, right now: If we removed religious hatred, the wars and animosity between Arabic and western cultures would vanish. Wars are often fought between two competing religious factions, with each side utterly convinced they are solely anointed by God with a duty to kill the infidels. Logically, they both can't be right and in fact, they are both wrong: The vast majority of religious believers and scholars will tell you God doesn't like that stuff. ngbabe - Please see my earlier posts in this blog for a fairly complete explanation of what rights are, legally, in the U. S., why we have them and how they are not anyone's to take away. Hopefully I have also lucidly explained the striking similarities in the plight of the gay and Afro-American minorities. Does membership of majority status as heterosexual entitle one to hurt another, gay minority, because being black is a minority? I would think that racism would make blacks especially sensitive to such social ostracism. Is it desire to fit in that turns one minority against another? I'm sure there are lots of unexamined reasons for such behavior but it perplexes me. Girlstar7 - You have my best wishes for all you do in life. There were many gays that fought for your right to marry interracially. If nothing else, remember the Golden Rule and return the favor. Doing so makes our society more tolerant, less likely to be abused by extremists and literally happier. Removing attacks on gays from your life (such as supporting bans on gay marriage) will also benefit you with living literally a more socially fulfilling, peaceful life - Dare I say a more Christian one? As firecatluv pointed out so eloquently, there are many contradictory, inappropriate and outdated things written in the Bible. Why not focus on the big picture of being a Christian? Didn't Christ have a close friend who was a prostitute, that he publicly supported? That's Christianity, to me and what I've been talking about, here. I know that what I have been posting is, as you put it, a "wrong answer," from the perspective of current conservative Christian dogma. I speak merely from a factual basis and was quoting your earlier post: "I as a christian woman must stand up for the naturalness of God’s law and morality." If it's unnatural, why are there gay rats, monkeys, etc.? Do they decide to live a "gay lifestyle?" Fearless Crusader - Explaining some of the reasons for social conflict and our legal rights protections takes some depth and care. Your disagreement takes terms out of context, skips considerable arguments, ignores fact and is a good example of what I've been discussing. If you carefully read my posts and perhaps the references to our Constitution, I'm sure you'll come to a greater understanding of this issue, at least from a legal viewpoint, if not of social processes and motivation. An excellent overview discussion, fully documented and accredited, of the mechanisms of The Politics of Hate is at: http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/9/5/2/pages259520/p259520-1.php Understanding of subjects like this is an inherently introspective process. Much of what interests me about people is their core - Not so much that someone is a gay-basher but are they willing to look within themselves and not only see their defects but change them? Do they see and treat others as they would like to be treated and if they don't, do they change their behaviors and come to enlightening thoughts? The highest-quality people, to me, are those with the courage to see through others' eyes something they have always assumed and then grow to be a more understanding, wise and kind person. It's this person I'm posting in this blog for.
Reply to this comment -
Glock says:Posted: 08 Jun 09
First of all I must say that I am against gay marriage. That being said, as someone who believe in that premise of the U.S. constitution I believe that each state should be free to choose it's own destiny. And I think that if someone wants to marry someone of the same sex, it should be allowed. However, I don't believe that their right to marry someone of the same sex should require anyone to "marry" them if THEY don't believe in gay marriage. If the door is opened to gay marriage, what about polygamists? How about their right to marry as many women as they want? What's fair for one is fair for all....equal protection. I also think that gay marriage and the promotion of gay marriage is a contributor to the degradation of American culture. But not to worry California, I'm sure this will be appealed to the 9th circuit and be overturned. If not there, the U.S. Supreme court will overturn it.
Reply to this comment -
fkoi says:Posted: 08 Jun 09
FearlessCrusader, I’m going to type this slowly because it seems to challenge you when I type at normal speed. To “hate on” means, “to insult or verbally attack someone,” according to the Urban Dictionary. You stated that laugh_sailor used Girlstar7’s post “as an excuse to condemn all who do not agree with him…” Girlstar7 clearly doesn’t agree with him. You therefore accused him of “hating on” her. It’s simple “if > then” logic. You may not understand the term “Politics of Hate” either, and therefore think it “a term that doesn’t even make much sense.” However it has about 66 million references on Google alone. People like Bill O’Reilly and Kim Weissman, for example, seem to make sense of it. When Girlstar7 uses terms like “choosing” and “lifestyle” to describe being gay, as innocent of bias as she may have meant it, she is uninformed. Having sex with someone of the same gender(or of different gender) is a choice. Being homosexual is not, at least according to people who have studied it scientifically. For laugh_sailor to use those terms of “otherness” as a jumping off point for an explanation of how verbal separation plays a major role in furthering the “Politics of Hate” was logical, appropriate, informative and expressed in very gentle terms (reflecting what a gentleman laugh_sailor has always been). I really had no intention of posting anything further on this topic. However, when you called me out by nickname, and so erroneously, I felt I had no choice. I suggest you not be so Fearless the next time you decide to challenge me to a battle of wits OR linguistics because you clearly come to the battlefield under armed.
Reply to this comment -
kristent says:Posted: 08 Jun 09
Girlstar and ngbabe First of all, I do not have to take god out of the political system, that is already one of the basic ideas that this country was founded on. Also Girlstar, you have been doing a good deal of whining and being hateful for someone who thinks that they are a victim of that sort of behavior. No one is defending the brutal treatment of slaves or insulting the struggle of African Americans today. I believe all minorities are deserving of EQUAL treatment under the law, not special treatment. I do feel that you are misguided in labeling all black people in this country as "good and very decent and loving strong people". That label certainly holds true for many but not all of any group of individuals. Ngbabe's experience with at the airport is certainly regrettable if the gay couple in question was truly engaging in explicit sexual conduct, as no couples should be doing that in public. Though without being more specific on what that conduct is, I'm afraid I will take her homophobic viewpoint on it with a grain of salt. (Just being honest. It is hard to believe your opinion unflinchingly when you are rather biased.) As far as saying that "no country in the world condones or approves of this lifestyle under any circumstances!" I would like to provide the following list of countries that allow gay marriages: Canada Sweden Norway Netherlands Belgium Spain South Africa Civil Unions/domestic partner benefits: Finland France Iceland Norway Portugal Denmark Sweden Germany United Kingdom Switzerland Israel New Zealand These are in addition to the states that recognize/perform gay marriages (Massachusets, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire) or civil unions (Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, California, Hawaii, Maine, Washington, New Hampshire, Oregon). *Note that some states/countries have both options. This information can be verified at http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/wheremarriage.htm ~Maximum Respect
Reply to this comment -
motoryacht says:Posted: 08 Jun 09
I think it GREAT , I fully support that court action ,and any other court action . Im glad to see that there are some morals left in this country . Personally I believe its a GREAT DAY not a sad one
Reply to this comment
Opinion
-
Stepping It Up: Why an Exclusive Relationship Might Be Right for You
Stepping It Up: Why an Exclusive Relationship Might Be Right for You As your connection with someone deepens, the prospect of transitioning to the next level—an exclusive relationship—may cross your mind. However, the concept of exclusivity varies among individuals...
-
Does she love me? 8 signs she sees you as more than a friend
Does she love me? 8 signs she sees you as more than a friend Whether your relationship spans a few days or several months, deciphering a partner's true feelings can be a captivating yet perplexing endeavor. In this article, we explore the intricacies of underst...
-
DIY Date Nights: Epic Fails and Unexpected Wins
DIY Date Nights: Epic Fails and Unexpected Wins In the quest for unique and memorable date nights, many couples turn to do-it-yourself (DIY) projects. These at-home dates range from cooking adventures to craft projects, often leading to unexpected ...
-
The Top 5 Excuses for Being Too Busy to Date
The Top 5 Excuses for Being Too Busy to Date In life, there are undoubtedly situations that genuinely hinder one's ability to prioritize dating. For instance, juggling the responsibilities of single parenthood alongside multiple jobs can leave l...
-
Debunking the Myth: Men and the Spectrum of Sexual Desire
Debunking the Myth: Men and the Spectrum of Sexual Desire In the nuanced dialogues surrounding sexuality and relationships, there remains one stereotype seemingly unshaken: the presumption that men possess an insatiable sexual appetite, always ready and eage...
-
Love Without Borders: The Beauty of Cultural Diversity in Relationships
Love Without Borders: The Beauty of Cultural Diversity in Relationships Embracing diversity in romantic partnerships can greatly enhance the richness and satisfaction in love. This exploration delves into how cultural differences, traditions, and unique viewpoints contrib...
-
Gaming and Giggles: When Couples Play Video Games Together
Gaming and Giggles: When Couples Play Video Games Together Video gaming has become a popular activity for couples, offering a fun and interactive way to spend time together. However, when couples dive into the world of gaming, it often leads to a mix of compe...
-
Dating rules: 8 crucial rules for dating interracially in 2024
Dating rules: 8 crucial rules for dating interracially in 2024 Dating in 2024 can be both thrilling and daunting, especially with the evolving landscape of modern romance. Whether you're new to the dating scene or returning after a hiatus, understanding the curre...
-
The Allure of the 'World's Sexiest Language'
The Allure of the "World's Sexiest Language" The concept of a "sexy" language is captivating, but what does it mean? Is it the way the syllables flow, the romantic history of the culture, or personal preference? While there's no definitive answe...
-
Harmony in Diversity: The Role of Music in Interracial Relationships
Harmony in Diversity: The Role of Music in Interracial Relationships In the diverse world of interracial relationships, music emerges as a universal language, transcending cultural barriers and creating a unique bond between partners from different backgrounds. It’s ...
Find your soulmate on AfroRomance
Coaching Testimonial
"The Coaching Service served as an incredible perk and has really enhanced my online dating experience"
Submitted by: Karen, USA, 34
My Dating Coach really took the time to go through my profile thoroughly. First she viewed my pictures and gave me great feedback.
She read through the written portion of my profile, line by line, and gave direct feedback on how to add my personality to it.
My amazing consultant, even asked how my contacts where going and offered a few suggestions to increase my interactions with new men.
I took her advice and made the suggested adjustments.
I have received more contact from men, more views, and have started communicating with more people which was the whole point of joining the site in the first place.
The Coaching Service served as an incredible perk and has really enhanced my online dating experience. Thanks!
Most Popular
- 1. Why white men love the black woman
- 2. White mother, white father, black baby
- 3. Why some Black women only date White Men
- 4. Why are Asian men and Caucasian women couples more common lately?
- 5. Is interracial sex better than sex with someone within your own race?
- 6. What kind of Black woman dates a White man?
- 7. Why do men almost always reappear after a breakup?
- 8. 16 things to never say about a mixed person
- 9. Are Black women and Asian men being sidelined?
- 10. Is the White man the Black woman’s ideal man?
fkoi ; Thank you for the Laughter this morning about the piece of sand that found its' way into the Oyster shell as the Pig in the pen was eating the Snake / which had found its' way { crawled } into his living quarters . Showing again the many differences that can exist from unwanted Vermin trying to move into places that they do knot Belong . These We shall see Everyday , All things in life no matter how annoying at First , can become Beneficial with Time if you take the time to Enjoy what God has given Us . Happy Fathers' Day