CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The pro-equal rights case against gay marriage
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The pro-equal rights case against gay marriage

post #1 of 29
11/17/04 at 11:42pm
Thread Starter 
I was reading that "Civil discourse about gay marriage" thread (mainly for eenin's posts!) and I someone made the comment about "Why do we have to be civil?" I took that as a slam against the right -- why do we have to be civil when talking to people who have no qualms about denying equal rights to other American citizens?

Now, it may very well have been "Why do I have to be civil when talking about fags?", but I'll stick with my reasoning for sanity's sake.

I've been doing a lot of reading about gender studies as of late at school, and homosexuality has become a big issue, obviously due to the election. One of the things that I've noticed is that the anti-gay marriage voice of the pro-equal rights side has become absent as this issue becomes more and more about hating gays vs. not hating gays.

So, I wanted to start this thread to talk about making a case against gay marriage. And really, I don't want to hear anything about the sanctity of marriage or moral values. There are plenty of threads to spread that bullshit.

I'm looking for a discussion about why gays shouldn't fight for the right to marry, not why they don't deserve it. Basically, I'd like us all to assume that homosexuals deserve the right to marry because they're citizens, but there is a pretty interesting case to be made against it.

Marriage, as all see, is a pretty exclusive institution. If gays were to gain the right to marry, they'd essentially be participating in the institution that has worked to exclude most sexual minorities. The big question is whether homosexuals could do good by working from the "inside" or by remaining with the sexual minority and working for a more liberated, open view of what a government-recognized marriage/bond/relationship should be.

Of course, there are some fundamental problems with proposing something like this. After all, if half of the nation can't get their heads around a man-man or woman-woman relationship, they surely won't get their heads around something that is even more radical about what a relationship or marriage should be.

Still, I'd like to hear what everyone thinks, whether it be about the actual issue or the practicality of it.
Reply
post #2 of 29
11/18/04 at 1:13am
Well, I've always argued this from an equal rights standpoint, and I just don't see any gray area between endowing gays the right to marry and actively discriminating AGAINST them, which is of course illegal and un-American. Even if you do a civil union which gives them every right a married person has, that slope is so slippery that it's just a matter of time before that "separate but equal" status is struck down in a court of law.

Conversely, to not endow them with these rights is to say that they are not equal, and in fact, are lesser citizens. Marriage isn't an exclusive institution. Any heterosexual qualifies with enough age and a willing partner. No commitment is needed, as countless celebrity wedding disasters have proven. Really, nothing else is required legally (perhaps a blood test, but that's just procedure). In fact, as "institutions" go, is there any that has less demanding requirements? Uphold your vows or don't. Be true or don't. Be a good mate or don't. Who cares? Beyond us making it official, The State doesn't give a damn.

So, the morality of marriage isn't a state issue. Never has been. And thus, moral arguments to ban gay marriage are as pointless as moral arguments to ban bad marriages. It's all about rights, and if a homosexual adult citizen has committed no crimes, then he should have the same rights as all other non-offending citizens. The right to live with and legally commit themselves to someone they want to be with. The right for who you love to be able to visit you in the hospital as any other's spouse does. The right to endow your job benefits to them. There's no gray area. Either they are equal and have all of these rights EXACTLY as heterosexuals do, or they are not equal citizens. They're a lesser class of people.
Reply
post #3 of 29
11/18/04 at 1:59am
Thread Starter 
Hmm, I don't think you're going where I intended. I'm talking about something else. There are some prominent homosexual writers who have made strong cases against gay marriage, and it's not from a discriminating point of view. They're not saying "Gays shouldn't marry," but rather, "Gays shouldn't want to marry." I guess what I'm looking to talk about is why gays would want the right to marry, why they'd want to adopt an institution that has a troubled past, both because of its religious history and how it has excluded so many people.

A lot of pro-equal rights writers who argue against gay marriage are saying that government needs to be much more free about what a relationship is. What some people argue is that by legalizing gay marriage, homosexuals are abandoning their cause and excluding others. After all, why should two people have certain rights for entering this bond when there may be two other people who don't want to commit? Or maybe it's a three or four person relationship?

I guess what their argument boils down to (and it's not an argument that I whole-heartedly agree with -- I'm more interested in playing the devil's advocate in a gay marriage discussion that isn't about hate and exclusion, but rather, what's best for the gay community and gay tradition) is that gays are definitely entitled to the right to marry, but do they necessarily want it? If so, they may very well be excluding other sexual minorities in the process.

I agree with what you said, Micah. Gays deserve the right to marry. I guess what I'm getting at is whether this is what they should be fighting for. It seems that they're fighting for their inclusion in a process that 's been historically exclusive. Should they be fighting for this as one step in a larger process, or should they be looking bigger and fighting for a more open view on what a "marriage" is?
Reply
post #4 of 29
11/18/04 at 2:03am
So you're talking about something other than marriage, that is basically marriage. Whatever.

They should just allow it and get it over with. Then maybe the church's can do something good with their money, like actually help people.
Reply
post #5 of 29
11/18/04 at 2:40am
Thread Starter 
Yup, that's exactly it.
Reply
post #6 of 29
11/18/04 at 3:00am
I had a big long rehash of my opinions written, but I erased it. I'm tired of arguing this issue. I know you're playing devil's advocate, flyarz. and that's cool. I just once would like to see someone give a compelling reason why we shouldn't allow it. I think we've done a pretty fair job of debunking most of the current arguments for banning it. whether it's about the "sanctity" of marriage, or trying to define what marriage is for, or trying to impose your particular moral code on the entire population, or the majority rules, or whatever. it's all bunk. the best the other side has is "it's not the way it has been for years" "it's not really a civil rights issue" and "it's unnecessary." the latter being the argument used when we try to explain all the reasons why homosexual unions would provide society the same "stabilizing factor" that hetero marriages do. they can't prove it won't, and we can't prove it will. so there you have it. not that anyone cares, but I'm still waiting for a new line of reasoning why it shouldn't be allowed. why it would be harmful.

otherwise, I'm gonna have to err on the side of freedom.
Reply
post #7 of 29
11/18/04 at 3:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyarz
Hmm, I don't think you're going where I intended. I'm talking about something else. There are some prominent homosexual writers who have made strong cases against gay marriage, and it's not from a discriminating point of view. They're not saying "Gays shouldn't marry," but rather, "Gays shouldn't want to marry." I guess what I'm looking to talk about is why gays would want the right to marry, why they'd want to adopt an institution that has a troubled past, both because of its religious history and how it has excluded so many people.

A lot of pro-equal rights writers who argue against gay marriage are saying that government needs to be much more free about what a relationship is. What some people argue is that by legalizing gay marriage, homosexuals are abandoning their cause and excluding others. After all, why should two people have certain rights for entering this bond when there may be two other people who don't want to commit? Or maybe it's a three or four person relationship?

I guess what their argument boils down to (and it's not an argument that I whole-heartedly agree with -- I'm more interested in playing the devil's advocate in a gay marriage discussion that isn't about hate and exclusion, but rather, what's best for the gay community and gay tradition) is that gays are definitely entitled to the right to marry, but do they necessarily want it? If so, they may very well be excluding other sexual minorities in the process.

I agree with what you said, Micah. Gays deserve the right to marry. I guess what I'm getting at is whether this is what they should be fighting for. It seems that they're fighting for their inclusion in a process that 's been historically exclusive. Should they be fighting for this as one step in a larger process, or should they be looking bigger and fighting for a more open view on what a "marriage" is?
But my point is that there should be no fight. This should be automatic. A no-brainer. What fight there is isn't just for marriage, but rather true equality. How that can be detrimental to anyone is beyond me. Whether gays want to marry or not should be an individual decision, but they should at least have the option like any other heterosexual adult.

You can certainly argue against gay marriage as a gay person on cultural grounds. But all that would do is produce yet another subcultural dividing line in an already fractured community. Some gays would be for. Some would be against. But in any case, they deserve the choice.
Reply
post #8 of 29
11/18/04 at 3:30am
Thread Starter 
I agree that they deserve the choice. But I also see some value in what gay marriage critics say about it, that it will only cause exclusion for other sexual minorities in the future. Wasn't there a ridiculous senator (or some government official) who came out and said that gay marriage would lead to men trying to marry turtles? It's sort of in that vein, except this opinion is nowhere near as ludicrous. There are relationships where people commit to one another, but not in a pair. There are relationships between gender-confused peoples.

I guess what these critics are saying is not that homosexuals don't deserve the right to marry. I think they'd grant that allowing gay marriage would be much better than what we currently have. But I like to think about where the efforts should be focused -- is this what gays should be fighting for? Inclusion in an institution created for and by heterosexuals?

As for chairmanofthebored -- did you read what I posted? And I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I'm just curious why you wrote what you did since this really has nothing to do with people fighting to suppress or deny the rights of homosexuals. In fact, many of these writers and voices are from the homosexual community. The reason I started the thread is because I think it's a very interesting voice that we don't get to hear in the media, the voice of someone who wants gays to have the rights that come with marriage, but without having to actually accept this old, troubled form. Basically, instead of including gays and ignoring other, less prominent sexual minorities, they want to create a new system (or just abolish the current system) where there will always be communities who are excluded. You said that you want to err on the side of freedom, and I'd argue that these people are arguing for freedom, a very radical and truer form of freedom that we don't normally consider or discuss when having this kind of conversation.
Reply
post #9 of 29
11/18/04 at 3:43am
I did read it flyarz... that is, your first post. I think I misunderstood your intention in this paragraph...
Quote:
I'm looking for a discussion about why gays shouldn't fight for the right to marry, not why they don't deserve it. Basically, I'd like us all to assume that homosexuals deserve the right to marry because they're citizens, but there is a pretty interesting case to be made against it.
... and jumped off from there. apologies, didn't mean to try and derail your intended focus.
Reply
post #10 of 29
11/18/04 at 4:08am
Thread Starter 
Sorry. I can clarify: Homosexuals, obviously, deserve the right to marry. They're humans, we're not supposed to tell them who they can love and can't love.

But, I've been reading a lot of stuff lately about why some gays -- a minority of them -- think that their fight should be much bigger, a fight for the excluded, rather than fighting to be included. I wanted to talk about it because while it's not a perfect argument, I think it's a very interesting one.

I also think it's another great example of how narrow-minded and hateful Conservatives or Republicans can be. There are many interesting ideas around about how gays can be provided with their own rights (as well as a path to forge a new tradition, rather than adopting a heterosexual tradition) outside of the terms of marriage (which is recognized by the government, but still very steeped in religion, as we can see by all of the anti-gay marriage votes this November). These ideas don't get any play in the Republican party, however, so when they oppose gay marriage, it's in a hateful way. (Note: And yes, this applies for some Democrats as well, of course.)

I think the ideas/theories I'm bringing up in this thread aren't hateful, they're just imagining a different way of looking at relationships instead of trying to cram everything into a heterosexual tradition.
Reply
post #11 of 29
11/18/04 at 4:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyarz
I agree that they deserve the choice. But I also see some value in what gay marriage critics say about it, that it will only cause exclusion for other sexual minorities in the future. Wasn't there a ridiculous senator (or some government official) who came out and said that gay marriage would lead to men trying to marry turtles? It's sort of in that vein, except this opinion is nowhere near as ludicrous. There are relationships where people commit to one another, but not in a pair. There are relationships between gender-confused peoples.

I guess what these critics are saying is not that homosexuals don't deserve the right to marry. I think they'd grant that allowing gay marriage would be much better than what we currently have. But I like to think about where the efforts should be focused -- is this what gays should be fighting for? Inclusion in an institution created for and by heterosexuals?
Well, I think it's a matter of dealing with one issue at a time. Instead of trying to lump in bestiality, incest, and whatever else, let's look at it one sexual minority at a time. I'm sure white male landowners wanted to use this same argument to keep the country exlusively within their grasp. If we free slaves, they'll want to be citizens. If we make them more than 3/5ths of a man, they'll want other rights. And if we allow that, then women will want to vote next. In fact, shortly after that, equal rights for all Americans will be enshrined into law and enforced. Next thing you know, it becomes a truly free country and a more level playing field. Can't have that.

Lots of American institutions were created for and by white men. I don't think women and minorities saying "Maybe we shouldn't WANT to take our rightful place in these institutions" would've done anyone any good. Fuck, a lot of black people said "Fuck those institutions," then created their own (Black fraternities, black scholarships, black schools, etc.). And there was and still is value in those separate, culturally-specific institutions,. But at the same time, there's value in our integration with the rest of the country. That's why people need the choice. They should have that right. Just as gays should. If they want to integrate into society by marrying, great. If not, that's great too.
Reply
post #12 of 29
11/18/04 at 5:22am
I don't see a problem with marriage as an institution. I think it does what it claims-- offers certain status benefits and provides a stabilizing influence of some sort, in a broad sense. Just because it is practiced in what in my view is a bigotted way at the moment, that doesn't call the idea into question. If people want to explore different types of publicly recognized arrangements (I'm talking about the terms of the arrangement, not the makeup of it) that's fine. But the people we're talking about here want to be married. Specifically.

As for the makeup of the unions-- as in who's allowed to get married-- personally I don't see who wouldn't be represented, besides unions of more than two people. Wouldn't gender confused couples be covered? If the only other sexual minority we're talking about here is polygamists, who I don't see in any significant number trying to stand up and be counted on a civil rights level, I wouldn't feel the need to hitch my wagon to theirs. I'm not saying there aren't people who wouldn't like the right to have a multi pronged relationship, but since the issue is more complex (I would assume the laws surrounding status benefits and such would have to be altered as well as the simple definition) and there isn't a groundswell of support for it that I see, I don't think gays have any obligation to include them in their fight. And further, I think a victory for homosexual unions would only help their cause... assuming it's a legitimate one.
Reply
post #13 of 29
11/18/04 at 10:34am
The man marrying turtle or cousin or sister arugment is null and void, because when is the last time you heard someone clamoring for any of those?

Besides animals can't enter into legal contracts so that argument is gone.

Paligamy and incest though is another issue, but what the fuck ever in my eyes. If they want it, go for it. If some dude wants 4 wives and the 4 wives want him, go for it. He can deal with all the bitching 4 wives are sure to give him. The incest thing could probably stand to be shut down by law on medical reasons of inbred children and the risks they impose. It'd be an interesting case to follow regardless, but alas I doubt some dude is willing to fight to the supreme court to marry his sister.
Reply
post #14 of 29
11/18/04 at 11:54am
I think this fits on the topic flyarz was trying to get at but my warped view of it.
What if they struck the word marriage from all legislature and replaced it with civil unions, for all gays, polys hetros, whatever (within reason i.e. no pedophiles)
Now here's where I go out on a limb. Argue the case based on separation of church and state. Church's have marriage and states have civil unions. To me it's not more far fetched than some of the ACLU's causes, and gives gays the legal rights they want.
Sorry if someone posted a similar idea in the gay marriage thread(I stopped reading that after like day 2)
Flame away.
Reply
post #15 of 29
11/18/04 at 12:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDan242
I think this fits on the topic flyarz was trying to get at but my warped view of it.
What if they struck the word marriage from all legislature and replaced it with civil unions, for all gays, polys hetros, whatever (within reason i.e. no pedophiles)
Now here's where I go out on a limb. Argue the case based on separation of church and state. Church's have marriage and states have civil unions. To me it's not more far fetched than some of the ACLU's causes, and gives gays the legal rights they want.
Sorry if someone posted a similar idea in the gay marriage thread(I stopped reading that after like day 2)
Flame away.
Not to swing flyarz's interesting thread back into more familiar ground (and no disrespect to MrDan, but this has been covered), but the problem with this idea is that marriage is as much a cultural institution as it is a religious one. No single religion owns the concept. As someone who plans to get married in a secular ceremony, I take issue with the idea that the term "marriage" would not technically be applicable in a universally (or at least state) -recognized sense. Government is partially our country's way of codifying its citizens shared belief system, thus it should address fundamental ideas like marriage. However, its rule should be broad enough where it leaves room for the differences in our belief systems to prosper.

As far as whether the fight is worthwhile for gays... I'd say yes, for the reasons Micah gave. While homosexuals might choose to create a new tradition, I think as long as marriage is on the books as a government-sanctioned institution (and it will be for a long time, I'd guess), it's a worthwhile fight in terms of equality.

I look at it this way: in the 1950s south, there were probably some black folks who would have been happier setting up a blacks-only city bus system than pushing for those front seats in the regular city bus. It would have provided seating anywhere and a sort of freedom from patronizing racists. But it would ignore the greater problem at hand - the institutionalized bigotry. Basically, even if you don't want to exercise a particular option (get married to the person you love or ride in the front of a city bus), it's always better that you have the option on the table.
Reply
post #16 of 29
11/18/04 at 12:31pm
I think the people bringing up beastiality and polygamy and what not do have a good, if bigoted, point. To play devil's advocate here, a line must be drawn somewhere. Otherwise you invite a whole bunch of ridiculous cases, i.e. turtles, relatives, children. Where is the line drawn?

I for one am for gay marriage. I happen to be religious, but I believe that, as long as they aren't hurting anyone, why not give people the right to choose. What bugs me about these religious people against it is the concept of free will. If God didn't want us to have free will, why even create evil at all? People have free will because then it's actually worth something if they make the right choice (whatever that may be). If they have no choice, then what's the point of behaving properly?

My idea...have civil marriage be completely separate from religious marriage. The civil marriage could be for homos and heteros, and the religious could be for whoever's religion it is. That way the government doesn't endorse one religion's idea of marriage, and it also can't affect that religions idea of marriage. Kind of like public/private school (although that is a completely different can of worms).

However, my point is that a civil line must be drawn. So, who draws it, and why do they have the right to draw it where they do?

Edited to add: You know what really bugs me about this banning gay marriage idea? They call it "Protecting the Sanctity of Marriage". I think the "sanctity of marriage" would be protected a whole lot more by outlawing divorce.
Reply
post #17 of 29
11/18/04 at 12:44pm
Line must be drawn?

Why lump these issues together? Marriage between a grown man and a grown man is NOT equivalent in ANY WAY to marriage between a grown man and a child, or an echidna, or a toaster oven. Deal with marriage between all individual consenting adults. THEN, deal with the issue of marriage between adults and children. THEN, deal with these other ridiculous issues.
Reply
post #18 of 29
11/18/04 at 12:55pm
But is it equivalent to a marriage between three grown men and four grown women, or between a grown man and his grown sister?

Keep in mind I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I cannot defend these views as well as I could defend my own belief.
Reply
post #19 of 29
11/18/04 at 1:01pm
The first, not at all. The second, somewhat, but that's a separate issue.
Reply
post #20 of 29
11/18/04 at 1:09pm
But why is it a separate issue, and why not at all. All can be lumped into the broad category "non-traditional marriage".

I think it's the "non-traditional" part that scares the extreme conservatives. I don't think it's about the "sanctity of marriage" at all. And I'm sure you're thinking "DUH!"
Reply
post #21 of 29
11/18/04 at 1:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDan242
Argue the case based on separation of church and state. Church's have marriage and states have civil unions.
The nail on the head. America, the home of religious freedom, but only if you're Christian.

I'll take it one further - and maybe somebody can answer this for me. I believe the government should back off this entirely, BUT - why would a gay couple get married in an institution that rejects the gay lifestyle? I can understand civil unions. And I can understand if they happen to find a religion that would accept them - but why on earth would you want to fight a religious establishment? It seems extreme.

Here's another thought that would make conservatives cringe: They want to put a stop to abortions, but have yet to explain what to do with the "saved" children? Let gay couples adopt them. Sit back and watch their heads explode. But really...is that not a suitable answer and argument for gay marriage? How many orphaned children in need of a loving family could benefit from gay marriages? And yes, a background check is in order - no more so than straight married couples.
Reply
post #22 of 29
11/18/04 at 2:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NervousXtian, gonzo journalist.
They should just allow it and get it over with. Then maybe the church's can do something good with their money, like actually help people.
I agree we can bicker for 50 years but eventully it will come to be, might as well get it over with.
The only thing the church does with it's money is make sure not one person is ever prosocuted for having sex with little boys. Oh and to make sure most priest have a ncie car.

I really don't have a problem with gay's getting married. However there are issues with it such as

Who gets the money in Divorce (who is the women).
I strongly belive a child should to be rasied by a mother and a father. I know ALOT of kids are not raised bye both but that is bye circumstance usally.
The public dispaly of male affection makes some people sick, shit I am sure some girls too.
Children will grow up thinking Gay is Normal, well if it was normal then we wouldn't have been designed to penetrate a vagina and your ass would lubed up when excited.
George Bush says its bad so it must be.
Reply
post #23 of 29
11/18/04 at 2:42pm
This thread has helped me learn what an echidna is. I had to look up that word. Thanks, Micah.
Reply
post #24 of 29
11/18/04 at 2:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydren
But why is it a separate issue, and why not at all. All can be lumped into the broad category "non-traditional marriage".
So could interracial marriages at one point. So could marriages that weren't arranged by the parents of the couple.

"Non-traditional marriage" is such a broad term that it's not just mutable, but entirely meaningless.
Reply
post #25 of 29
11/18/04 at 3:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydren
My idea...have civil marriage be completely separate from religious marriage. The civil marriage could be for homos and heteros, and the religious could be for whoever's religion it is. That way the government doesn't endorse one religion's idea of marriage, and it also can't affect that religions idea of marriage. Kind of like public/private school (although that is a completely different can of worms).
Civil marriage is already essentially separate from religious marriage. The government doesn't care whether you get married by a priest, captain of a ship, justice of a peace, rabbi, or Elvis impersonator, as long as the right paperwork is filed.

On the other side of the coin, the Catholic Church has no obligation to recognize secular, Hindu, or Muslim weddings. But you know what? Individual Catholics tend to do so, anyway. That's because the societal and governmental conception of marriage is broader than any one church's, and most Americans recognize this. Yet many still fail to understand that if this is true, then it's also true that the legal definition of marriage is not beholden to any religious definition of marriage. And vice versa.
Reply
post #26 of 29
11/18/04 at 3:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chowyunfrag
I really don't have a problem with gay's getting married. However there are issues with it such as

Who gets the money in Divorce (who is the women).
I strongly belive a child should to be rasied by a mother and a father. I know ALOT of kids are not raised bye both but that is bye circumstance usally.
The public dispaly of male affection makes some people sick, shit I am sure some girls too.
Children will grow up thinking Gay is Normal, well if it was normal then we wouldn't have been designed to penetrate a vagina and your ass would lubed up when excited.
George Bush says its bad so it must be.
I'm sincerely hoping that all of these reasons are supposed to be meant in jest, but something tells me they're not.
Reply
post #27 of 29
11/18/04 at 3:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
"Non-traditional marriage" is such a broad term that it's not just mutable, but entirely meaningless.
This is pretty much the point that I'm getting at here. People are all up in arms because it's not what they're used to.

And civil marriage is supposed to be separate from religious marriage, but for most people they're the same, as evidenced by this recent election.

One thing I don't understand is the difference between marriage and civil union. I thought that marriage was the religious term and civil union was the civil term, but apparently this isn't the case. If it was, this wouldn't be a separate but equal thing. They wouldn't be equal, one would be for the religion, one for the state. So what's the difference between marriage and civil union, other than semantics?
Reply
post #28 of 29
11/18/04 at 3:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydren
This is pretty much the point that I'm getting at here. People are all up in arms because it's not what they're used to.

And civil marriage is supposed to be separate from religious marriage, but for most people they're the same, as evidenced by this recent election.

One thing I don't understand is the difference between marriage and civil union. I thought that marriage was the religious term and civil union was the civil term, but apparently this isn't the case. If it was, this wouldn't be a separate but equal thing. They wouldn't be equal, one would be for the religion, one for the state. So what's the difference between marriage and civil union, other than semantics?
I'm pretty sure it has something to do with civil unions not having to be recognized in any state other than the one that sanctioned it. Also, I think married couples that move get the benefits of their "home" state transferred to their new state. This isn't protected in civil unions.
Reply
post #29 of 29
11/18/04 at 5:30pm
Again, beastility shouldn't be in the picture. An animal can NOT enter into a legal contract, thus negating any chance of man marrying animal. Same goes for inanimate object. Multiple partner marriages and incestial marriages can sorta be lumped together in the group, but there are medical reasons for outlawing incestial marriages. Paligamy though, well, whatever floats your boat.

Marriage may be big in the religous community, but I'd hesitate to call it a religious institution. The reason most of America voted to ban gay marriage is because they hate homosexuals.

Hell a good portion of Americans hate anyone who isn't white, they just won't come out and say it. Why do you think Republicans don't even try to capture the black vote in a lot of places? They'd piss off the white vote.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The pro-equal rights case against gay marriage