Comments on: Former Home of Apartheid More Tolerant than United States http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2006/11/former-home-of-apartheid-more-tolerant-than-united-states/ A black bourgeoisie perspective on U.S. politics Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:53:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Christopher Chambershttp://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2006/11/former-home-of-apartheid-more-tolerant-than-united-states/comment-page-1/#comment-135 Christopher Chambers Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:29:00 +0000 http://s45368.gridserver.com/?p=163#comment-135 Marriage is a religious concept. If you don't think gays should marry, that's your right and between you and your God. However, as a civil/governmental matter, if two American citizens want to commit to each other, pledge monogamy, provide for each other in the event of illness and death, then they have the civil and basic human right to do so. Jeez, it's pretty simple to me. Eitheryou get equal protection of the laws and due process, or you don't. if not, then why not just toss all the gay men nd lesbians (and out the closeted ones) into camps like the Germans did and gas them? Sound crazy? Not really. Once you deny someone's basic humanty under the law, everyhting's possible. <br/><br/>Personally (based on my religious creed) yes marriage is between a man and a woman. But that has nothing to do with my civil view of marriage. I see no conflict here. I am against female circumcision, but if that is the dominant tenet of someone's religion, I can't go into their nation and stop it. However, if they are living in America--it's called child abuse and assault. if there is a growing body of laws, opinions, etc that label it wrong and a vestige of the subjagation of women, then that will turn the tide. But I'm not going to label someone a barbarian mutilator without recognizing culture. Marriage is a religious concept. If you don’t think gays should marry, that’s your right and between you and your God. However, as a civil/governmental matter, if two American citizens want to commit to each other, pledge monogamy, provide for each other in the event of illness and death, then they have the civil and basic human right to do so. Jeez, it’s pretty simple to me. Eitheryou get equal protection of the laws and due process, or you don’t. if not, then why not just toss all the gay men nd lesbians (and out the closeted ones) into camps like the Germans did and gas them? Sound crazy? Not really. Once you deny someone’s basic humanty under the law, everyhting’s possible.

Personally (based on my religious creed) yes marriage is between a man and a woman. But that has nothing to do with my civil view of marriage. I see no conflict here. I am against female circumcision, but if that is the dominant tenet of someone’s religion, I can’t go into their nation and stop it. However, if they are living in America–it’s called child abuse and assault. if there is a growing body of laws, opinions, etc that label it wrong and a vestige of the subjagation of women, then that will turn the tide. But I’m not going to label someone a barbarian mutilator without recognizing culture.

]]> By: Yzerfonteinhttp://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2006/11/former-home-of-apartheid-more-tolerant-than-united-states/comment-page-1/#comment-131 Yzerfontein Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:54:00 +0000 http://s45368.gridserver.com/?p=163#comment-131 <a HREF="http://www.southafrica.to" REL="nofollow">South Africa</a> brought the word brought <a HREF="http://www.southafrica.to/history/Apartheid/apartheid.htm" REL="nofollow">apartheid </a> (seperateness) into the world, now it's it's only right that we bring the world "saamheid" (togetherness) South Africa brought the word brought apartheid (seperateness) into the world, now it’s it’s only right that we bring the world “saamheid” (togetherness)

]]>