No, I wouldn't imply that violence would take place, I would say it if that's what I meant.

I'm saying the prejudice towards the gay community would grow quite significantly.

Here in Vancouver already there is a lot of hate towrds the gay community, straight guys walking into gay bars wanting to start shit, gay people being attacked just for being happy on the street, gay districts being vandalized. I'm sure this would only heighten due to the change and the equality that the gay community has achieved.

I'm sure when the black people got rights, they here hated hard for the first few years, but that's a whole race, this is a different situation as this situation has no bounds in race or species and the numbers are signaficantly lower compared to the whole black population.

I think if they put on a huge vote in Canada or America the majority of people will disagree with same sex marriages, but a small amount of people will never get married and don't believe in it will vote anyways.

They aren't taking rights, they are seeing if whether they should be granted the right to.

And I say they should just come up with their own, in it's way it will be discrimiatory to both the gay community and the heterosexuals as the straights can't get unionized that way only gays and gays can't get married the way that was there first, sure it creates another category in ways to get married, but whats 1 more category in the ways to get married? It creates another boundary, but you are NEVER going to remove hate boundaries between people.

/thread

I suggest you watch the entire video.

This explains .. everything.

Actually, not really because i'm too scared to watch it.

I think people hate gay people because they do nothing for humanity when it comes to reproducing. Which is like the point of living, if we didn't have technology or a job to strive for.

they may not think that straight up, but I think it's in the back of their minds.

I personally don't give two shits about people in general, but changing what is already there to benefit a few people, which would mean changing the way the majority thinks is retarded.

It's like if people wanted to change the name Jell-O to Jelly-O's or something, the majority is most likely going to hate it, so why would we keep insisting that us the minority should be treated like the majority?

@T0ribush: You have no idea what you are talking about.
If you think you do feel free to show some sources for your claims.

According to that you are the mentally challenged one.
Civil rights are always worth fighting for.

“Hey guys, someone is burning jews, wanna come help them“
“Nah dude, they are just a few people who would benefit. Trying to help them by changing the minds of people would be retarded.“

No, the majority hates gays because it goes against most of their religion, and because most people are judgemental and if they can't be like them, then they shouldn't be here at all, is the mindset many have. The problem is that they wont give them a chance.

Here's where both you and I had a few things messed up.
The federal marriage act doesn't actually affirm or disallow gay marriage. It only says that states are not required to approve gay marriage. Marriage laws are currently still governed purely by the state, so Prigg v. Pennsylvania does not come in to the picture here.

I'm not sure what the Lemon test has to do with much of anything, unless state laws cite or include religion. To discuss this we'd have to examine the law state by state, which seems a little silly.

Also, T0ribush does not seem to understand how discrimination works. Forcing black people to use inferior toilets and schools does not hurt both white and black people, it hurts black people. And as I've said earlier in this thread, "it makes people angry" isn't a reason not to make it happen. I'm sure lots of policies supported by a majority were not advocated by the minorities, but that's how democracy works. Currently preventing gay marriage makes homosexuals angry, so what? Your argument is a double-edged sword.

“Hey guys, someone is burning jews, wanna come help them“
“Nah dude, they are just a few people who would benefit. Trying to help them by changing the minds of people would be retarded.“

"We'll comeback with a majority amount of people and stop this disgusting act of burning a live human being"

Which they ended up doing. Then ^^^ the minority ended up losing the war.

Also help the jews or the people burning the jews? The jews did benefit from this, in way and you better be talking about the holocaust.

Also this is about Majority and Minorities you just bringing up chaning minds of people not with numbers, but just by changing their minds leads me to think you don't read much properly.

Yes, black people got passed slavery, and discrimination, you know how? POPULATION. There were a lot of black people and there still is to get laws passed for black people.

Gays, there are a lot, but is there enough?
There maybe for a couple of states in America, but to completely sway America you would need a lot of fucking people.
Every homosexual would have to come out and say "This isn't right, we just want the benefits that you give straight married couples!"

Also I hate the use of black people in this thread, agiain they had numbers and they are a WHOLE race, that they were racist against, they couldn't do anything, but work for nothing or very, very, very low wages.

Gays just aren't allowed to marry. How does this even compare to even use that part of history?
That they are jsut being discrimated against, I'm sure there are closer relations in history that this arguement can relate to.

I wouldn't really consider black people a minority even when they were slaves. Sure they had minor to no rights, but their population was defininatly a majority, which is why they came through in history. They were treated like minorities, but they weren't.

The circumstances during the oppression of black people are atleast 20 times the size of the circumstances of a few people wanting to get married.

Nice troll attempt.

Try actually reading posts before responding to them.
You don't prevent something because it makes a few people angry, that is democracy.
You do prevent something because it is immoral.