Yes, child molesters should be able to hang out at chuckee cheese! ...wait.
Just as my statement misrepresents your position, you've misrepresented the anti-gay marriage crowd. No one is denying anything "just cause." They have their reasons and their opinions; whether or not you believe they're valid is another subject of debate.
The problem is, that for a lot of people it is just cause. why in the hell should Dick and Joyce have any concern for what Tom and Joe want to do? They are forcing their christian beliefs on an entire group of people. The homosexuals. Now, while child molesters may be forced to abstain from their preferred sex, I do believe that most homosexual couples that want to get married are legally consenting adults. The most common answer I have found for the reasons to deny homosexuals the equal right to marriage have varied:
"God want's marriage to be between a male and female"
"Homosexuality is gross anyway"
"They are just perverts, we shouldn't let them marry. It gives the impression that it's alright."
"They aren't christian anyway, why would they want to get married?"
I tend to find these excuses to be rather lacking. So I throw them into a "just cause" box. The arguments tend to go along the lines of: "why do you think this is wrong?", "because god says (insert other christian apologetic)", "But they have nothing to do with you, so why do you care?", "Because it's just wrong", "but why?", "Because it is".
And a conservative would say they do have the same right straight couples do: the right to undergo the process of marriage with someone of the opposite sex. They would claim that not even a straight person has the right to marry someone of the same sex, thus equality exists. Surely you're starting to see the definition problem.
As a nurse, I have to treat every single patient exactly the same. I don't get to pull out little stops because I don't agree with something they may have done. While arranged marriages still exists, most Americans are allowed to choose who they are going to spend the rest of their lives with. Unless, of course, you are a homosexual. In which case, well, you can't. It's that simple. Unless you subscribe to the christian family ideal, you are going to be denied that possibility. A man can, in some religions, go out and marry 5 women, some of which may be related... However, if you want to marry another consenting male you are disallowed.
Why? because it is their religious right. However, for homosexuals, there is an inequality in which you are denied the right to make a life decision because of other peoples religion.
I wasn't around then, so I have no idea. But from what I know of history the women's suffrage movement was about preserving patriarchal power and the mixed-racial couple was about misguided preservation of genetic purity--what exactly does that have anything to do with the reasons why people oppose gay marriage?
The woman's suffrage movement was about being denied the unlawful denial of representation.
As stated in my before post:
Most of the same excuses they are using to keep marriage in the woman-man category are the same excuses that they were using then.
Because they are. If you read lower. I gave examples of excuses to keep women out of polling places, and anti mixed racial semantics.
Even by your own admission, there's no similarity between women voting and homosexuals being allowed to marry other homosexuals. I'm fully confused about what sort of point you're trying to make here when you set up an expectation and then violate it yourself seconds later.
What? I am fully unclear about when I stated that they had nothing to do with each other. They clearly have things to do with each other. For one thing, they are both struggles for basic rights. By your own admission, both of my examples were about the preventions of a christian ideal being replaced by human rights. Not everyone in America subscribes to the christian word. Also, both of those examples were eventually changed in the repressed group's favor. They are both, also, still struggles that continue today.
Again, they do allow everyone to marry people of the opposite sex.
Again, if they are going allow a freedom for people to marry, they should allow for people to marry the people they want to. Before we get more pedophile rights, We should all agree that they should be legally consenting adults.
Or did you mean the definition that everyone should be able to marry anyone they want to?
That's the problem with taking a hard stance on any real issue and trying to argue about human rights--there is no moral authority or objective reality from which the whole concept of human rights comes from to begin with.
What do human rights have anything to do with a moral authority? Human rights should be views as a amoral subject. The problem with this whole matters is everyone is trying to force their own moral authority, i.e. God, into the debate.
Most people on the earth believe they come from god, which consequently, they also believe god doesn't want gays getting married.
Not everyone on earth believes in god. Not everyone that believes in god, thinks that gay's
shouldn't be allowed to marry.
There are plenty of good arguments for homosexuals being allowed to married; you managed to hit on exactly none of them because of the extreme way you went about making your argument.
There are plenty of arguments for homosexuals to not be allowed the basic human right of choosing their own life partner and celebrating it in the perscribed manner of tradition; you managed to hit on exactly none of them because you were to busy trying to textually throw down on me.