Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are separate issues in the literal sense of the word. The fight for women's rights in the US is a separate issue from the fight for women's rights in Venezuela. Of equal importance, but they are separate issues.

That is the very definition of a distinction without a difference.

Less than 50 years ago, marriage between blacks and whites was illegal. I'm hard-pressed to see how laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are materially different. If you can explain it to me, I'm all ears.

11:43 here (but not pp).

Interracial marriage has no connection to gay marriage. One redefines marriage, the other does not. Just because both were, at one point, illegal does not mean they are the same.

Again, that's a distinction without a difference (which is, by the way, a logical fallacy). The current laws prohibit a person from marrying another based on immutable characteristics. Anti-miscegenation laws did precisely the same thing.

Anonymous wrote:Is there a reason for being against gay marriage that does NOT involve religion? I can't think of one, but I'm also not the best person to ask.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are separate issues in the literal sense of the word. The fight for women's rights in the US is a separate issue from the fight for women's rights in Venezuela. Of equal importance, but they are separate issues.

That is the very definition of a distinction without a difference.

Less than 50 years ago, marriage between blacks and whites was illegal. I'm hard-pressed to see how laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are materially different. If you can explain it to me, I'm all ears.

11:43 here (but not pp).

Interracial marriage has no connection to gay marriage. One redefines marriage, the other does not. Just because both were, at one point, illegal does not mean they are the same.

Again, that's a distinction without a difference (which is, by the way, a logical fallacy). The current laws prohibit a person from marrying another based on immutable characteristics. Anti-miscegenation laws did precisely the same thing.

again, your race is not a choice. your sexual orientation in many cases is a choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a reason for being against gay marriage that does NOT involve religion? I can't think of one, but I'm also not the best person to ask.

Anyone?

NotSoAnonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Glad to hear she is doing fine-do you think having the rights are part of marriage or having the rights are part of being partners?

Am not PP, but another married gay woman, and the rights come from being an American. Marriage for everyone or civil unions for everyone but no separate but equal. Our rights should not be put to votes, and if the Feds must trump the states, so be it. They did the same for interracial marriage.

Anonymous wrote:Reposting this from the "gaytred" thread:

I think you’re right. I do believe that some gay people make the connection between the US Civil Rights Movement with the gay rights movement in an attempt to show a common ground. I also think that some people are misguided in their attempts and use the comparisons to try to “shame” black people into support of gay rights, which doesn’t work.

I am AA, and while I of course can't speak for my entire ethnic group, I've seen three general reactions of black people to the comparison of the US CRM with the GRM. These are just generalizations and don't cover everyone, of course:

1. Very anti-gay people (who are also often very religious) who respond to the comparison with vitriol towards gay people. The comparison only serves to offend, although they wouldn’t be accepting of homosexuality even if the comparison were not made.

2. Pro-gay rights people who agree with the comparison, but they would be pro-gay rights even if there weren’t similarities to the CRM.

3. Pro-gay rights people who are offended by the comparison and/or the way some people go about making the comparison (and the latter is the issue most of the time). It doesn’t lessen their support for gay rights, but it does cause them to side-eye the “gay community.” Also, as you can see from some of the PP’s posts, many people placed the blame for Prop 8 passing on the “black community.” It turned out later that reports of AA support for Prop 8 were greatly exaggerated (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/06/BANB154OS1.DTL), but it did stir up ugly racial sentiment within the gay community and the larger liberal community. It turned out that the gap between black support for Prop 8 and non-black support for Prop 8 was much smaller than was first (and widely) reported, and of course black people alone could not be responsible for its passage. The resentment towards blacks after the passage of Prop 8 served to make gay black people feel alienated within their own community. Additionally, pro-gay rights black people do not like their struggle for civil rights to be equated with the fight for gay rights when they are also made the scapegoat. Basically, don't say "Hey, our struggle is the same!" AND "You're the reason for my oppression!"

Exactly. Obama's views on same-sex marriage are "evolving," which is oh-so-convenient right before an election. I would be he deep down inside believes in it, but doesn't have the guts to come out and say it.

Anonymous wrote:Ok, then, let's step aside from the civil rights comparisons for a second. How about a state amending its constitution to state that Christians may not marry non-Christians. I mean, hell, religion is a choice, and I'm pretty sure there's some sacrament that prohibits marrying a non-believer. Those of you who are anti-gay-marriage, would you be comfortable with this amendment? Those of you who are somewhat...uncomfortable with your struggle being compared to the struggle for gay rights, would this make you more comfortable?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The resentment towards blacks after the passage of Prop 8 served to make gay black people feel alienated within their own community. Additionally, pro-gay rights black people do not like their struggle for civil rights to be equated with the fight for gay rights when they are also made the scapegoat. Basically, don't say "Hey, our struggle is the same!" AND "You're the reason for my oppression!"

"Gay rights" are civil rights.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, then, let's step aside from the civil rights comparisons for a second. How about a state amending its constitution to state that Christians may not marry non-Christians. I mean, hell, religion is a choice, and I'm pretty sure there's some sacrament that prohibits marrying a non-believer. Those of you who are anti-gay-marriage, would you be comfortable with this amendment? Those of you who are somewhat...uncomfortable with your struggle being compared to the struggle for gay rights, would this make you more comfortable?

Who are you trying to make comfortable? People who are already pro-gay marriage or people who are anti-gay marriage?

I'm not religious, so while I find the Civil Rights Movement comparison problematic, the religious comparison means nothing to me. Of course, I am for gay marriage, and I think instead of trying to convince people using comparisons, you should convince them on the cause's own merits. Gay Americans should have the same rights as all other Americans.