Washington State set to legalize Gay Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Uh huh and when interracial marriages were illegal people were free to marry a member of the opposite sex and same race just like everyone else.

He's parodying anti-homosexual sentiment :p

I always found this weird though, would these people have told an inter-racial couple that they could always "marry one of their own race", in response to anti-miscegnation laws?
 
He's parodying anti-homosexual sentiment :p

I always found this weird though, would these people have told an inter-racial couple that they could always "marry one of their own race", in response to anti-miscegnation laws?
Ok, sorry, Im not active enough to know everyone's stances so if someone is sarcastic it will likely go right over my head.

And yes, Im sure these people were EXACTLY the people who would have told interracial couples that they had the exact same rights as everyone else to marry the "right" people
 
Ok, sorry, Im not active enough to know everyone's stances so if someone is sarcastic it will likely go right over my head.

And yes, Im sure these people were EXACTLY the people who would have told interracial couples that they had the exact same rights as everyone else to marry the "right" people

Well considering that the arguments against same-sex marriage are disturbingly similar to inter-racial marriage, It could be argued that they might be...
 
And yes, Im sure these people were EXACTLY the people who would have told interracial couples that they had the exact same rights as everyone else to marry the "right" people

There is just one swooping difference, Interracial couples can Produce Children, and besides that, race is not a big deal, were all related to Adam and Eve!
 
Why is producing children a big deal when infertile couples can marry and birth control exists?
 
Clearly any woman who has gone through menopause should be forbidden from marrying anyone but an infertile male.
 
There is just one swooping difference, Interracial couples can Produce Children, and besides that, race is not a big deal, were all related to Adam and Eve!

And because they cannot naturally produce children (unless they have a surrogate mother, or had IVF if a lesbian couple) you would deny ALL LGBT the right to marry who they want?

How isn't that callous or malicious?

And frankly it doesn't matter if "race is not a big deal", it was at the time, and the same arguments used to deny swathes of people the right to marry based upon something they could not control, are now being used against LGBT people.

History really does repeat itself.

Because heterosexuality is natural, it is what makes new generations. For thousands of years it has always been with a man and a woman in every society on every Continent

As is Homosexuality, which occurs in nature.
 
There is just one swooping difference, Interracial couples can Produce Children, and besides that, race is not a big deal, were all related to Adam and Eve!


That has no relevance in any way, shape, or form. You might as well say that gay marriage should be banned because the sun rises in the east. That statement is 100000000000000000% as relevant to the discussion.
 
Because heterosexuality is natural, it is what makes new generations. For thousands of years it has always been with a man and a woman in every society on every Continent.

For thousands of years it was legal nearly everywhere to enslave your fellow man, since when is historical status reasonable justification for an action?
 
Tsunamis are natural too.
 
nothing else to do in washington state so may as well get gay married.

next time I look at washington state they'll have turned in canada. And the rest of the US will ask, "whoa, when did that happen?" yet almost nothing will change.

You clearly have never been there or are holding the state to a California/New York standard or stuff to do.... Well, the eastern part of the state is terrible, but the coastal areas make up for that.

EDIT: And to the point of this thread, not allowing gays to marry, whether they are a race or not (Why is only racism a bad form of discrimination to some people?), is as offensive to me as not allowing interracial marriage or whatever bigoted bigotry conceived by a bigot that one might point out.
 
For thousands of years it was legal nearly everywhere to enslave your fellow man, since when is historical status reasonable justification for an action?

But you see kramerfan86, it's okay in THIS context because

I should of known the "it's not natural!" card would have been played...
 
And because they cannot naturally produce children (unless they have a surrogate mother, or had IVF if a lesbian couple) you would deny ALL LGBT the right to marry who they want?

How isn't that callous or malicious?

And frankly it doesn't matter if "race is not a big deal", it was at the time, and the same arguments used to deny swathes of people the right to marry based upon something they could not control, are now being used against LGBT people.

History really does repeat itself.



As is Homosexuality, which occurs in nature.

Racial differences are irrelevant to the making of children, or their upbringing.

Gender differences are infinitely more important than racial differences.
 
Mother nature is a <female dog>.
 
But you see kramerfan86, it's okay in THIS context because

I should of known the "it's not natural!" card would have been played...

Considering they dont choose to be homosexual the "natural" card is nearly as laughable as the history or "can make children" card.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom