re-abused?

re-abused?
In my humble opinion:

'Marriage' is a religious institution to be governed by whatever particular religious groups wants to do.

For equal treatment under the law there should be some sort of domestic partnership recognition. The government recognizes 'marriage' and grants certain benefits to those who 'marry'. By denying the right to 'marry' to same sex couples they are denying rights and privileges granted to others. This is discriminatory and is illegal. This is what the judges in MA said.

That's my opinion, I think it's fair.

Steve
 
Brayton said:
I like those guiding principles, Orodo.

Here's a question for everyone.

Are we immune from an action if that action is a constitutional amendment? Laws and constitutional amendments are things that affect our lives everyday, aren't they? How can we be immune from them?

I think there is a great deal that we can change in reference to our perception of what people are thinking or saying about us. I think it is possible to develop immunity from that sort of thing to a great extent. I don't think that such things constitute "re-abuse."

When a constitutional amendment is proposed and supported in a President's State of the Union speech, I think that those who want such a thing must contitute a group of significant size.

Is it possible anymore to dismiss them as a sort of fringe group?

I have always felt that a majority of people are anti-gay when it gets right down to it. They may be friendly, nice, that sort of thing, they may even be supportive and accepting on a personal, one-on-one basis, but when it comes to broad principles of acceptance and guarantees of basic rights, I think that most of them are anti-gay.

That, from my point of view, is the source, the fountainhead of re-abuse.

If our original abusers saw us as individual human beings worthy of respect and possessing certain basic rights, I don't think the abuse would've occurred.

I think that if people today saw us as a group of individuals worthy of respect and possessing certain basic rights, a constitutional amendment would not only never been proposed but wouldn't have even come forward in any serious way to begin with.

This is, I think, a betrayal of the trust that as human beings we should be able assume. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

I liked this thread, and as I reread this years later thought there were some good points.

Michael joseph
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top