Hoot Mon writes:
FO writes:
No, Hoot Mon, I did not put forth a self contradictory statement.
I am not comparing the plight of blacks and this Country to the plight of homosexuals. I'm going to go slowly here, so maybe you can keep up. What I (and others) are telling you is that you (and Catholic Scientist) are using
the very same arguments to prevent homosexuals from marrying members of the same sex, as were once used by people to prevent blacks from marrying whites.
There you go. You did it again.
But during the time anti-miscegenation laws were in force, blacks were able to marry just the same as whites were. The only stipulation was they had to marry someone of the same race. So if we follow your argument, then there was no reason to revoke these laws.
Note that there is no comparison of the plight these two groups have faced in the past, since discrimination is not decided by how much a group has suffered in the past. For example, we don't discriminate against Jews, does that mean we get to discriminate against Christians because they did not experience the horrors of the holocaust?
As for the whole 'civil union' thing, how exactly would that work? If everyone, heterosexuals and homosexuals, simply got a civil union would they all just refer to themselves as married, because that is basically what it is regardless of what the state puts on a piece off paper; or would they have to go through some sort of marriage service?
Could this be construed as discriminatory against atheists? Would people dismiss a couple as not being married because they did not recognise the church they used for the ceremony?
™ Version 4.2
