Some food for thought:
The year is 1967. Almost every state in the union has laws on the books, passed by a majority of voters, against interracial marriage.
---------------------------------------
The argument is religious. Arguing that the Curse of Canaan renders whites and blacks as separate in the eyes of God, they point to the following Biblical quotes:
Genesis 28:1: "And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan."
Leviticus 19:19: "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind ..."
Deuteronomy 7:2-3: "And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
Deuteronomy 22:9: "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled."
Deuteronomy 23:2: "A *** shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."
Jeremiah 13:23: "Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil."
Every major Christian denomination in the United States bans interracial marriage. The Vatican issues an order against it. Southern Baptists issue a proclamation that it should be punishable by death.
--------------------------------------
The argument is not just religious.
Interracial marriage is seen as a "social experiment" with unknown consequences. Blacks are "widely known" as being incapable of commitment. They have unquenchable, uncontrollable sexual appetites. They engage in risky sexual behavior with anonymous partners that is "proven" to be more dangerous for the transmission of disease than whites.
We have never allowed interracial marriage. For hundreds if not thousands of years, societies have banned it. Who are we to overturn centuries of cultural teachings? It's just common sense.
Children are used as part of the argument. Can a child function in a multi-racial household? How will they identify? What will happen to the culture of America? We should not be "redefining marriage" when there is an unknown effect on children.
--------------------------------------------
72% of the public (upwards of 90% in the South and almost 100% among devout religious adherents, including Christians) is against interracial marriage.
--------------------------------------
That year, the Supreme Court rules in Loving v. Virginia that state laws against interracial marriage, passed by popular support via voter ballot initiatives, are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the US Constitution.
There is immediate outcry. How dare the Supreme Court give blacks "special rights" when 72% of the US is against it? There is no constitutional right to marriage! It's a privilege, and the domain of religious institutions!
There are calls for impeachment. Some religious groups threaten to shoot and kill the judges responsible.
---------------------------------------------
Unlike the 90%+ approval for bans on interracial marriage in 1967, Prop 8 passed by only 2% of the vote -- less than 600,000 people. The situation is all the same, except this time, only a slim majority of voters disapprove.
The ruling and evidence presented in Loving v. Virginia reads almost word for word like the ruling made on Wednesday in Prop 8.
Someone explain to me: how is the situation any different? The arguments are all the same. The reactions are all the same. The justifications are nearly identical.
Public opinion does not sway to support interracial marriage by a majority until the early 1980's. In some demographics (those over 65 and some parts of the South), a majority is still against it.
Knowing all this, does anyone still think the Supreme Court did the wrong thing in 1967? Would they be doing the wrong thing now?
Ban On Gay Marriage Struck Down
Ban on Gay Marriage Struck Down
W/o quoting the wall-o-text...absolutely not.
Especially when put into perspective like this.
Especially when put into perspective like this.
Wow, I had no idea so many people were so against interracial marriage. Technically I suppose my own marriage is interracial; I am very pale Caucasian and my husband is Native American. We do fine, and it's no one else's concern, and no one else should care. Honestly.
So... if you're half asian half european....who the hell are you suppose to marry? another half asian half european?
what if you're part black,partwhite,partindian,partjew then wtf u do?
what if you're part black,partwhite,partindian,partjew then wtf u do?
Unfortunately, as compelling as is the point using interracial marriage, I know a number of religious people who will say that people cannot help the color of their skin, but homosexuality is a choice. It doesn't matter to them that homosexuality happens in the animal world...they -cannot- believe anything else, because to believe that people are born gay means that their god intentionally created people who are automatically doomed to hell from birth.
Personally, I think this is a proud moment in American history, when we turned the corner -away- from majority-rule discrimination towards true equal rights for everyone. I am not gay, but I am very happy about this decision.
Personally, I think this is a proud moment in American history, when we turned the corner -away- from majority-rule discrimination towards true equal rights for everyone. I am not gay, but I am very happy about this decision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Sweden
This (basically the whole article lol) I didn't know :O
Edit: Sweden became the first country in the world to remove homosexuality as an illness and is considered to be one of the most gay-friendly countries in Europe and the world when it comes to laws surrounding homosexuality.
Go Sweden?
This (basically the whole article lol) I didn't know :O
Edit: Sweden became the first country in the world to remove homosexuality as an illness and is considered to be one of the most gay-friendly countries in Europe and the world when it comes to laws surrounding homosexuality.
Go Sweden?
Bismarck.Magnumatic said:
Emiisuzu said:
Let them be as miserable as the rest of us...At the end of the day its just a piece of paper anyways. The only reason most fight for it so hard is they want the tax cuts. Now my only thing I have against it...the argument of choice. We all make the choice. If you want to argue its not then I wanna see you keep that same though for a pedophile or a rapist. You are basically saying that we as people can not control our actions when you say it is not a choice. And lets keep religion out of the argument since neither evolution nor creation can be 100% proven that's why they are called theory.
You are very confused my friend!
That is definitely the most ignorant thing I have ever heard in my life. It lets me know that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
The word theory has many different meanings, just like many other english words. You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact. When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.
You're confusing the everyday use of the word, with the scientific use of the word!
In Science, a theory is a well-substantiated, well-supported, and well documented explanation for our observations.
In Science, Theory is the goal! It is the ultimate goal. When a theory is finished, it is the closest that anything can ever come to being proven. There is nothing higher or better than a theory; Not even laws!
Facts and Laws are less important than a theory:
1. Theory
2. Laws
3. Facts
Scientific theory basically ties all of the facts together, and creates an explanation that best fits.
Take the theory of rain for example:
Fact 1: The sun gives off radiation that heats the Earth's atmosphere.
Fact 2: Radiation from the sun causes water to evaporate.
Fact 3: The Water vapor rises.
Fact 4: Transpiration, which is water escaping from plants due to Sun's heat, also contributes to some extent, to the process of evaporation.
Fact 5: Condensation: It is in this stage that cloud formation occurs. The water in the form of the vapors rising, cools down at a certain height and condenses to form clouds.
Fact 6: The water keeps condensing to form clouds.
Fact 7: When too much water accumulates, the clouds get too heavy, and it begins raining.
All of these facts together form an explanation on how this all happens.
That is what is what Scientists call a 'theory'.
The theory that you're confusing this with is the everday use.
Here is an example of your use of the word:
'All 30 children had a different theory as to who put the tack in the teachers seat.'
If you were to say that "Evolution is just a theory" to any scientist.. You would definitely be laughed at.
Then you can explain why Creationism is considered a theory. And at the same time scientist would argue it was wrong. And there is Alien Intervention Theory as well.
Another Devil's advocate moment. This is not what I support, but some food for thought nevertheless.
If marriage is regarded as Union in "Holy Matrimony" and thus recognized as a religious commitment, Churches have every right to deny Homosexual pairings if it is against their Religion. It's like arguing that being thrown out of an AA meeting for bringing a keg of Newcastle is unconstitutional.
Of course, homosexuals were just as stubborn as homophobes, when the proposition of "Civil Union" compromise was put up. It is somewhat petty to complain about a title that originates as a union through a "Club" (more or less) that has Rules that you're breaking.
If marriage is regarded as Union in "Holy Matrimony" and thus recognized as a religious commitment, Churches have every right to deny Homosexual pairings if it is against their Religion. It's like arguing that being thrown out of an AA meeting for bringing a keg of Newcastle is unconstitutional.
Of course, homosexuals were just as stubborn as homophobes, when the proposition of "Civil Union" compromise was put up. It is somewhat petty to complain about a title that originates as a union through a "Club" (more or less) that has Rules that you're breaking.
i didn't read all 14 pages but i think there's a couple things over looked based on what i did read ... 1. marriage isn't a right so regardless of your orientation your not covered under the constitution ... 2. every time you say BC or AD you confess there was a Jesus that did raise from the dead he split time in half and you confess that with BC and AD
edit: marriage is a contract verbal and written and the terms of said contract are outlined in your vows
edit: marriage is a contract verbal and written and the terms of said contract are outlined in your vows
Valefor.Yishay said:
i didn't read all 14 pages but i think there's a couple things over looked based on what i did read ... 1. marriage isn't a right so regardless of your orientation your not covered under the constitution ... 2. every time you say BC or AD you confess there was a Jesus that did raise from the dead he split time in half and you confess that with BC and AD
edit: marriage is a contract verbal and written and the terms of said contract are outlined in your vows
edit: marriage is a contract verbal and written and the terms of said contract are outlined in your vows
Just because people use dating systems, math, science, or whatever that has been invented and/or used doesn't mean that the people using the system believe in the same things that the creator of it did.
Look at the Gregorian Calendar.
Are you going to stop using that because you don't like the people who made it?
Are you saying that Februus - the god of Death really exists every time you say February?
Odin.Zicdeh said:
Another Devil's advocate moment. This is not what I support, but some food for thought nevertheless.
If marriage is regarded as Union in "Holy Matrimony" and thus recognized as a religious commitment, Churches have every right to deny Homosexual pairings if it is against their Religion. It's like arguing that being thrown out of an AA meeting for bringing a keg of Newcastle is unconstitutional.
Of course, homosexuals were just as stubborn as homophobes, when the proposition of "Civil Union" compromise was put up. It is somewhat petty to complain about a title that originates as a union through a "Club" (more or less) that has Rules that you're breaking.
If marriage is regarded as Union in "Holy Matrimony" and thus recognized as a religious commitment, Churches have every right to deny Homosexual pairings if it is against their Religion. It's like arguing that being thrown out of an AA meeting for bringing a keg of Newcastle is unconstitutional.
Of course, homosexuals were just as stubborn as homophobes, when the proposition of "Civil Union" compromise was put up. It is somewhat petty to complain about a title that originates as a union through a "Club" (more or less) that has Rules that you're breaking.
To this I would say that not all marriages are conducted in churches. In fact that increasing popularity of ceremonies conducted in courthouses (and some cases libraries) is astounding. Though these ceremonies are not taking place in a religious atmosphere they are still recognized and regarded by the law as marriages.
That said, if the two homosexuals in question can actually find a church that will marry them if that is their wish then more power to them. However there is more than one way to skin a cat, and just because the traditional method involves a religious entity doesn't mean that the entire possibility of homosexuals marrying should be totally nullified.
Caitsith.Mahayaya said:
Valefor.Yishay said:
i didn't read all 14 pages but i think there's a couple things over looked based on what i did read ... 1. marriage isn't a right so regardless of your orientation your not covered under the constitution ... 2. every time you say BC or AD you confess there was a Jesus that did raise from the dead he split time in half and you confess that with BC and AD
edit: marriage is a contract verbal and written and the terms of said contract are outlined in your vows
edit: marriage is a contract verbal and written and the terms of said contract are outlined in your vows
Just because people use dating systems, math, science, or whatever that has been invented and/or used doesn't mean that the people using the system believe in the same things that the creator of it did.
Look at the Gregorian Calendar.
Are you going to stop using that because you don't like the people who made it?
Are you saying that Februus - the god of Death really exists every time you say February?
QFT. Stupid poster is stupid
Valefor.Yishay said:
i didn't read all 14 pages but i think there's a couple things over looked based on what i did read ... 1. marriage isn't a right so regardless of your orientation your not covered under the constitution ... 2. every time you say BC or AD you confess there was a Jesus that did raise from the dead he split time in half and you confess that with BC and AD
edit: marriage is a contract verbal and written and the terms of said contract are outlined in your vows
edit: marriage is a contract verbal and written and the terms of said contract are outlined in your vows
CE OR BCE ALL THE WAY!!!!
you have an uninformed opinion about marriage anyway.
marriage is something that is authorized by the state, not the church, making your statement completely moot.
Odin.Zicdeh said:
Another Devil's advocate moment. This is not what I support, but some food for thought nevertheless.
If marriage is regarded as Union in "Holy Matrimony" and thus recognized as a religious commitment, Churches have every right to deny Homosexual pairings if it is against their Religion. It's like arguing that being thrown out of an AA meeting for bringing a keg of Newcastle is unconstitutional.
Of course, homosexuals were just as stubborn as homophobes, when the proposition of "Civil Union" compromise was put up. It is somewhat petty to complain about a title that originates as a union through a "Club" (more or less) that has Rules that you're breaking.
If marriage is regarded as Union in "Holy Matrimony" and thus recognized as a religious commitment, Churches have every right to deny Homosexual pairings if it is against their Religion. It's like arguing that being thrown out of an AA meeting for bringing a keg of Newcastle is unconstitutional.
Of course, homosexuals were just as stubborn as homophobes, when the proposition of "Civil Union" compromise was put up. It is somewhat petty to complain about a title that originates as a union through a "Club" (more or less) that has Rules that you're breaking.
the christian faith as a whole is too diverse to just say that it outright disapproves of gay marriage, or you wouldn't have gay people in the clergy, or gay people having church weddings.
the sad part is where some churches think that marriage is something that the church has anything to do with rather than chanting a few preplanned incantations and making vows.
Caitsith.Mahayaya said:
Valefor.Yishay said:
i didn't read all 14 pages but i think there's a couple things over looked based on what i did read ... 1. marriage isn't a right so regardless of your orientation your not covered under the constitution ... 2. every time you say BC or AD you confess there was a Jesus that did raise from the dead he split time in half and you confess that with BC and AD
edit: marriage is a contract verbal and written and the terms of said contract are outlined in your vows
edit: marriage is a contract verbal and written and the terms of said contract are outlined in your vows
Just because people use dating systems, math, science, or whatever that has been invented and/or used doesn't mean that the people using the system believe in the same things that the creator of it did.
Look at the Gregorian Calendar.
Are you going to stop using that because you don't like the people who made it?
Are you saying that Februus - the god of Death really exists every time you say February?
ppl have been using BC and AD for about 2k years now ... the calender has been used for since 1585 and that god of death was a roman god and it was a to explain things they didn't know about. maybe a virus that killed off lots of ppl idk. that said i don't honor Februus i do understand death if you call death Februus so be it i just call it death... you honor all of time when you split it in two. i did read on your link that the month of Februus is pre 450 BC does this mean then that even Februus and the romans congess Jesus?
it would appear to me that no one really cares about the legal side of this ... marriage IS NOT a right ... get off the religion side of this it's a stupid argument why? cause even non religious ppl in CA voted for this.
Pandemonium.Spicyryan said:
Valefor.Yishay said:
Caitsith.Mahayaya said:
Valefor.Yishay said:
i didn't read all 14 pages but i think there's a couple things over looked based on what i did read ... 1. marriage isn't a right so regardless of your orientation your not covered under the constitution ... 2. every time you say BC or AD you confess there was a Jesus that did raise from the dead he split time in half and you confess that with BC and AD
edit: marriage is a contract verbal and written and the terms of said contract are outlined in your vows
edit: marriage is a contract verbal and written and the terms of said contract are outlined in your vows
Just because people use dating systems, math, science, or whatever that has been invented and/or used doesn't mean that the people using the system believe in the same things that the creator of it did.
Look at the Gregorian Calendar.
Are you going to stop using that because you don't like the people who made it?
Are you saying that Februus - the god of Death really exists every time you say February?
ppl have been using BC and AD for about 2k years now ... the calender has been used for since 1585 and that god of death was a roman god and it was a to explain things they didn't know about. maybe a virus that killed off lots of ppl idk. that said i don't honor Februus i do understand death if you call death Februus so be it i just call it death... you honor all of time when you split it in two. i did read on your link that the month of Februus is pre 450 BC does this mean then that even Februus and the romans congess Jesus?
That is okay I use BCE and CE, and harass people who talk to me who refuse to use it.
and i'd say to that, use it! it's part of what America was founded on the right to choose what you believe in. if you don't believe in a God great if you do believe in a God then great our forefathers died for both sides and ppl sit here like small children saying one side is better when ppl have died for both sides
Valefor.Yishay said:
it would appear to me that no one really cares about the legal side of this ... marriage IS NOT a right ... get off the religion side of this it's a stupid argument why? cause even non religious ppl in CA voted for this.
You really should take the time to read the thread. A lot of this was already discussed.
Fenrir.Schutz said:
Valefor.Yishay said:
it would appear to me that no one really cares about the legal side of this ... marriage IS NOT a right ... get off the religion side of this it's a stupid argument why? cause even non religious ppl in CA voted for this.
You really should take the time to read the thread. A lot of this was already discussed.
i'll take your word for it then i didn't read but a few pages and it all seemed to be the god argument over and over
Valefor.Yishay said:
Fenrir.Schutz said:
Valefor.Yishay said:
it would appear to me that no one really cares about the legal side of this ... marriage IS NOT a right ... get off the religion side of this it's a stupid argument why? cause even non religious ppl in CA voted for this.
Yah there were references to the judge's decision, the criteria involved in the judgement, the legal assumptions that arose as a result, the actual arguments used by both sides, etc. But you can spot check each page for the important stuff.
not a
Not a right, so let's let no one marry if we have the need to feel to treat other human beings as our inferiors!
GREAT PROGRESS GUIZ!
nope on a right. it's a heart felt contract between two ppl and the vows outline that contract and if the vows aren't followed you get divorce ^^
Pandemonium.Spicyryan said:
Valefor.Yishay said:
it would appear to me that no one really cares about the legal side of this ... marriage IS NOT a right ... get off the religion side of this it's a stupid argument why? cause even non religious ppl in CA voted for this.
Not a right, so let's let no one marry if we have the need to feel to treat other human beings as our inferiors!
GREAT PROGRESS GUIZ!
nope on a right. it's a heart felt contract between two ppl and the vows outline that contract and if the vows aren't followed you get divorce ^^
Valefor.Yishay said:
nope on a right. it's a heart felt contract between two ppl and the vows outline that contract and if the vows aren't followed you get divorce ^^
Ever hear of arranged marriages? I'm REALLY sure two people who more likely than not never even caught a glimpse of the other were really in love and in no way agreed to the contract for reasons other than love.
Keep in mind, arranged marriages were most popular when religion controlled nearly everything.
EDIT: So your heartfelt contract argument is a load of crap.
i don't live in CA. that said i think it would be easier to change current civil union or common law rules to reflect the marriage issue and i think it would be faster to do that then a prop8. and lastly it's something the government could do over the will of the ppl and not cause such a huge fuss. i'm not saying anyone is more inferior and i don't know the laws there. i'm just trying to offer an idea that would constructive to both parties in the matter.
Caitsith.Linear said:
Valefor.Yishay said:
nope on a right. it's a heart felt contract between two ppl and the vows outline that contract and if the vows aren't followed you get divorce ^^
Ever hear of arranged marriages? I'm REALLY sure two people who more likely than not never even caught a glimpse of the other were really in love and in no way agreed to the contract for reasons other than love.
Keep in mind, arranged marriages were most popular when religion controlled nearly everything.
EDIT: So your heartfelt contract argument is a load of crap.
lol yeah i've heard of arranged and if you don't live in the states you may have to deal with that ... we don't at least not in the public eye we don't. but yeah that's not right you should want to be with the person your about to marry
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.