The Dark Ages of America...

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I am half-Asian and half-white, and for many years this country had laws against two people of different races getting married (in fact, they invented a name for it, mascegination (sp)). People said that it was "unnatural" for two people of different races to get married. Eventually those laws were extended towards african americans, and only recently have the last of these utterly abominable rules been struck down.

In the case of interracial marriage society has thankfully put aside its prejudices and now the practice is relatively commonplace. Although some people may still not approve (I often get dirty looks when travelling in the South with my family), at least it is not illegal.

Eventually it will be the same with gay marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh the horror.

[ResidentParanoid]

Although I am not going to comment on the libertarian view of what the government should or shouldn't do, the government does currently encourage as well as discourage some behaviors.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Government should only encourage a small set of behaviors that are considered crucial to the good of society as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I am not going to comment on the libertarian view of what the government should or shouldn't do, the government does currently encourage as well as discourage some behaviors.

[/ QUOTE ]
You already did.

[jakethebake]

Great debate, everyone...especially you, Elwood. This was fun. I guess my biggest issue with this whole thing was the title of the thread. There are some swful things going on today, but I hardly think anything as silly as this topic warrants calling these "The Dark ages of America...".

[Felix_Nietsche]

A well respected and probably the most accurate and most trusted newspaper in the USA("The Onion") once published an article roughly titled "Gay Pride Parade Sets Back Mainstream Acceptance of Gays 20 Years". The story had pictures of bare chested men wearing thong underwear and sandals with full makeup..... And they were acting very.....Mmmmmmmm.....UN-mainstream. Is this behavior suppose to generate respect and acceptance? If str8 men were acting this way, would they be respected and accepted?

Question:
In YOUR world, is it POSSIBLE for a person to want marriage to continue to define as between a man and a women without being accused of being filled with 'hate' and 'misunderstanding'?

I could care less about men being gay (and ugly chicks!). To me, that just means less competition. Gay "marriage" is not about hatred it is about gays wanting acceptance. They are DEMANDING acceptance and if you don't accept them then you are a ________ (insert name: [censored]-phobe, nazi, etc).

There are legal avenues for homosexuals to have many of the legal aspects of marriage and if a homosexual couple wants to do that then do it. But the emotional blackmail of 'If you don't aggree with me then YOU must be filled with hate' is starting to get a little old.... Maybe it is time for some new material...

[PITTM]

I believe that the onion is mocking the traditional stereotypes that hold back homosexuals from gaining widespread acceptance. The daily show does the same thing all the time. They are parodies, not meant to be taken seriously...

rj

[ResidentParanoid]

When a man and a woman walk down the street holding hands, I can giggle and call them goofy. Others can look at me and call me childish.

When a man walks into his workplace at IBM wearing a circus clown outfit, all the guys in blue suits and ties can call him a goof and make sure he never gets promoted.

When a woman walks into a very nice restaurant wearing a dog collar and 15 piercings in her head, the owner may decide not to serve her.

In each of these examples, some people have defined a behavior as unacceptable or unappealing. When that group of some becomes a majority, the behavior causes the person to be shunned and an outcast. When that group of some shrinks because the shunning turns out to be "wrong", then the behavior becomes acceptable. The creation of these ammendments just shows the current will of the majority.

In the particular case of gays, I am not optimistic about these behaviors becoming acceptable to the majority in the short term. As another poster has pointed out, no law is stopping anyone from gay behavior. But asking for approval from the majority has put the issue center stage, and caused the proposing of the marriage amendments. Maybe in another generation or two the majority will accept it, but it doesn't look good now.

[PITTM]

My main point in this whole post was that people once thought many things were wrong or unnatural or whatever you want to call it. Things like civil rights, womens sufferage, slavery were all issues where a group of people fought very hard to end oppression, and now we look back on those people and call them bigots. The "Dark Ages of America" title was intended to point out the fact that when we look back at this election 50 years from now, we will realize that a bunch of state constitutions were amended in a manner that encouraged bigotry on the basis of sexuality, which i believe is absolutely embaressing. Although my state(California) was not involved in any gay marriage ban elections, i will be ashamed that the rest of the country encouraged such bigotry.

rj

[ResidentParanoid]

[ QUOTE ]
Government should only encourage a small set of behaviors that are considered crucial to the good of society as a whole.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Although I am not going to comment on the libertarian view of what the government should or shouldn't do, the government does currently encourage as well as discourage some behaviors.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You already did.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I correct myself: remove the "should only encourage" and make it "currently encourages".

[brassnuts]

The "Dark Ages of America" are upon use because gay marriages are not accepted? Give me a break.