Don't 'defend' my marriage

Denver Post ^ | 11/30/03 | Carleen Brice

[Wordsmith]

But until 40 years ago, interracial marriage was considered immoral.

Nonsense. Interracial marriage has a long and rich heritage, including Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. "Gay marriage" has never been accepted by any society anywhere during all of humanity's history.

[RobbyS]

Homosexuality is an identity, just like heterosexuality or skin color Maybe like heterosexuality, but the skin color thing. Pure bullshit. Absolutely no evidence that it is inborn.

[RobbyS]

. The miscegenation laws had a political purpose. Interracial marriage was forbidden for one reason, to establish white supremacy in the South. There was probably more race-mixing after the Civil War than during slavery, but because the children of prostitutes were bastards they had no claim on theie daddy's name and property.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Personally, I find the upcoming televised wedding of two people who "fell in love" during six weeks of taping a reality TV show scary.

Well, the thought of being married to Trista Rehn is scary regardless of the circumstances...

[Lijahsbubbe]

Ooh, you are verygood! I am taking note.

[Lijahsbubbe]

Being black is an ethnicity. Homosexuality is what you do, and it is perverted, and there is no conclusive evidence that shows a person is born that way. Why do you insist on degrading black people? Why don't you compare lesbians to your grandmother, or all homosexual males to your son?

[Lijahsbubbe]

If you were a black person who wanted to marry a white person in 1965, you'd be in exactly the same position that two gay people are in today.

No, homosexuals can't use the same positions that straight people can. They're different.

[Lijahsbubbe]

Of course that doesn't prove anything any more than your assertations of "trust me" does

LOL

[Lijahsbubbe]

I simply can't equate two consenting adults who wish to enter into a contract with sex with children or animals.

Oh, but you can equate anal sex to black children? You need to take your bigoted trash and can it.

[Lijahsbubbe]

Oh, and one more thing, every time I hear about anal sex I will equate it with your family. In your own words, "I think the equation is absolutely sound".

[Tempest]

Good article, I like it.

[BillF]

Coming soon - boy/dog, girl/elephant.

Just don't say elephant/donkey.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Absolutely no evidence that it is inborn.

It doesn't matter whether it is or it isn't. Homosexuality is about preference or orientation, regardless of the cause.

On the other hand, let us not call it an identity, but simply a way to be. A way to be inside that has to do with sexuality. Some see the behavior as sinful. OK. I don't, but I understand there are traditions in this country that matter which do see it that way. More power to them.

I despise elevating everything to an identity so that all politics becomes identity politics.

I am passionately interested in this cause, which is to continue the institution of marriage the way it is now. I do not understand why these threads degenerate into a shouting match over whether or not homosexuality is inborn. What difference does it make?

[gcruse]

What difference does it make?

Good question. If two adults of any persuasion wish to set up a household and live together, whether they do so of manufactured intentions, or whether they are biologically disposed has got nothing to do with their rights or the lack of them to cohabit. It's nobody's business why I want to walk down the street. As an American, it is my right to do so. That is sufficient.

[RobbyS]

Homosexuality is about preference or orientation, regardless of the cause. This is totally different from something like skin color, but it is politically useful to make the claim that it is like skin color because this hooks the civil rights crowd. As for orientation, how do we know that it is any more profound that a preference for blondes in our society?

[NutCrackerBoy]

I agree. There are those who support laws against sodomy. I am not one of them. Live and let live.

But. Civil marriage is not a right. It is a civil institution regulated by each state. There are good reasons to maintain this institution as the union of one man and one woman.

[RobbyS]

Marriage is a special relationship. Gay "marriage" is doing no more than calling an entirely different relationship by the same name and vesting it with all the rights belonging to marriage proper. It is somewhat like calling a corporation a person.

[radiohead]

There are some in the black community who have been quite vocal against attempts to equate homosexuality with racial oppression

Add another one to the list. My late husband was also a white guy and there is no way that I would equate being able to marry outside one's race to homosexual marriage.

Personally, I'm pretty sick of gays (especially white males) trying to say they're struggles are similar to those of blacks who were discriminated against by law until fairly recently.

[gcruse]

I think I see where it will end up, and I favor that end.
Marriage will remain a church sanctioned ceremony recognized by the state. Civil unions will be state recognized cohabitation to provide the benefits of marriage such as insurance, inheritance, and property.

[Lijahsbubbe]

I despise elevating everything to an identity so that all politics becomes identity politics.

Exactly. Let the homosexuals argue their validity on their own merit then. Why must homosexuals and homosexual cheerleaders mention comparisons to blacks in order to further their agenda? Every time this subject comes up, the insulting inevitable comparison occurs. Would you like your children or family constantly compared to homosexuality?

Let them argue their case on their own. I don't think they can do it.