Defending the Truth

I don't understand why people say it's "religions" fault that marriage has to be between man and woman. The man/woman union has ALWAYS been considered different from the "others". Of all the "historical instances" of homosexual unions, I have yet the hear of a single one that was defined as the "same" as the one between hetero couples. It's not "religion" that deems the unions different, it's common friggin sense.
We don't need "religion" to tell us that it is something off about a woman that allows her body to be used as a sexual ragdoll on a porn flick. As entertaining as that may be. But common sense tells you that any woman that does that has to have issues. "For the money" is a poor excuse.

it's not a law - it's a requirement which people are working to change - though if it WERE a law, people can certainly work to change unfair and unjust laws.

your "temporarily" has been being used for five years now - isn't a little tired now?

Nobody has ever said they're "the same" on this forum (I would say 'anywhere,' probably somewhere sometime somebody said it). However, they're EQUAL. Just as a woman is not the same as a man, but they're equal; just as a black man is not the same as a white man, but they're equal; a gay union is equal to a straight union.

Equality. Sometimes it really sucks when we must, as a just and fair republic, treat all law-abiding citizens equally.

Nobody is treated equally in this country. That is just a myth. And, by the way, straight white people aren't immune to this reality either. It all boils down to how much money you have as I've posted many times before.

I've always found the "lots of people are unjust and unfair, so it's okay we are, too" argument fairly shallow.

I'm going to go with Gary's definition of the whole outlook of this point. In the state of MA, marraige is not restricted to just man to woman. Period. I know there are many whom do not agree with this; as I was one of these not so long ago.
In other words, I'm saying that the words "gay" and "homosexual" have no true legal definition. If that is the stance MA takes on the institution of marraige; that is strictly the business of MA any other state's business. should MA or the US Supreme Court reverse this stance (or ruling)of MA; then it is now illegal. Until then, any two individuals of whatever gender can be married. Period. FX; you say that you are married to a White woman. It wasn't all that long ago that this was illegal. What made it legal?

The thing about that was that those laws were made to keep white people from marrying ANY race. Not necessarily limited to black people. Additionally those laws served many other functions. It kept the government from recognizing black men as citizens, since if a black man married a white woman, the government would have to recognize him. How can one black man be considered a slave, yet another a full citizen married to a white woman.

THIS country created those laws in the first place. They didn't bring them over from the colonies. Homosexuality is punishable by death in some countries. Ignored in others. And forbidden to marry in nearly all. Comparing that fact to the relative local phenomena of miscegenation is kinda a long stretch. Especially when "British Law" back then allowed marriage to 10 year olds, even a black one.

bull - you confusing history

a. black men had the vote long before interracial marriages were legal

b. white men married asian women, latin women, indian women ... it was BLACK women that he couldn't legally marry.

I've always found the "lots of other countries are unjust and unfair, so it's okay we are, too" argument fairly shallow.