CatherineM Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 My grandmother was born in 1900, so I'm sure she heard the term homosexual, but that doesn't mean that she would have KNOWN what the word meant. It probably wouldn't have computed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 Homosexuality only became prominently known in the general culture in comparatively recent decades. My dad, who grew up in the '50s, said he had no idea what a homosexual was when he was a kid. Homosexuality was regarded as a shameful and deviant vice, and was not something discussed in polite company. Today, of course, its openly touted everywhere. The kids growing up now really don't have a conception of just how far our culture has fallen in this country, accepting as "normal" what would have absolutely horrified earlier generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 (edited) [quote name='notardillacid' post='1565507' date='Jun 9 2008, 09:33 PM']Wow. Could you source that?[/quote] [url="http://www.wehaitians.com/annals%20of%20homosexuality%20from%20greek%20to%20grim%20to%20gay.html"]http://www.wehaitians.com/annals%20of%20ho...20to%20gay.html[/url] FYI, when I was a kid, I didn't know what homosexual meant either. I'm talking about adults in the early 1900s. Edited June 10, 2008 by Kitty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 [quote name='Socrates' post='1565668' date='Jun 9 2008, 09:38 PM']I believe a very dangerous precedent was set when federal courts began "recognizing" (i.e. making up) "non-listed" rights and powers in the Constitution. It's easy enough for a judge with an agenda to "recognize" whatever he wants to find. Remember, Roe v. Wade was based on such "non-listed rights." And while I'd personally agree that people do have a fundamental right to marry, the problem is that a sodomistic "union" between two people of the same sex cannot constitute a marriage. And, as has been pointed out, if judges declare that the states must legally recognize homosexual "marriages," then where indeed do you draw the line? Must the states then give the benefits of legal marriage to absolutely anyone who wants them? A man and two women? An apartment full of straight guys? A brother and sister? A man and his mother? A person and a dog? This is not a facetious argument, but a serious problem with this whole line of legal thought. Once marriage is no longer legally defined as between one man and one woman, how will it be defined?[/quote] I agree. I just wanted to post that we do have a fundamental right to 'marry'. And just as you said, homosexuals cannot truly 'marry'. Thats how I see the logic. BTW we blame the judges, but where are the legislatures on this one??? Our elected reps. (in some states) are sitting back and doing nothing. If the laws are in place, that binds the judges; even congress has a check on the supreme court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 [quote name='rkwright' post='1566500' date='Jun 10 2008, 08:31 AM']I agree. I just wanted to post that we do have a fundamental right to 'marry'. And just as you said, homosexuals cannot truly 'marry'. Thats how I see the logic. BTW we blame the judges, but where are the legislatures on this one??? Our elected reps. (in some states) are sitting back and doing nothing. If the laws are in place, that binds the judges; even congress has a check on the supreme court.[/quote] Well you saw what the state supreme court did in California, overriding the popular vote. I'd agree the legislature should do more, but courts striking down state laws is a real problem. Since it is likely this issue will eventually go to the SCOTUS, I just pray they will rule in favor of the states and people. This is yet another reason why it is imperative that we get more conservatives on the SCOTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rckllnknny Posted June 11, 2008 Author Share Posted June 11, 2008 blah blah blah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouisvilleFan Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 [quote name='rckllnknny' post='1568443' date='Jun 11 2008, 03:45 PM']blah blah blah.[/quote] Well, I don't know about you guys, that pretty much convinces me. I'm gonna go hug a gay man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 [quote name='rckllnknny' post='1568443' date='Jun 11 2008, 12:45 PM']blah blah blah.[/quote] This is one of your more reasoned answers so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I thought Socrates made a valid point about judicial activism. There blahs does seem a bit much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rckllnknny Posted June 11, 2008 Author Share Posted June 11, 2008 lol. love ya guys too.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now