Comparing homosexual marriage to inter-racial marriage

vanity | 13 Feb 04 | Linda Martinez

[eccentric]

A caller to Rush Limbaugh today (Friday) compared gay marriage to inter-racial marriage. While it is easy to take offense to the comparison (as Rush did), there is some truthfulness in it. For people of 50 years ago, who who not bigots, what was their major objection to inter-racial and even inter-cultural marriage? What was the first concern they expressed to their children when faced with this possiblity? "What about the children?" And years ago, and in someways, even today, this is a very real concern. Children in inter-racial and inter-cultural homes had a much more difficult social situation to deal with.

And that is what the push for legal homosexual marriage is all about: the children. When Heather has 2 mommies, both mommies want equal standing in custody, school, medical care.... When Heather wants an abortion ---no, strike that. She wouldn't go to mom for permission for that. When Heather wants her ears peirced, both moms want equal rights to give consent. When the moms get divorced, they want equal standing in the court for custody and child support.

So what? This shouldn't concern my family.... yes, it does. When given equal standing with man-woman marriage, homosexual couple demand the right to adopt and foster other people's children. This has already happened for one mother who placed her baby for adoption and then found he was given to a homosexual couple. The courts told her she had relinquinshed her right to object to who raised her birth-son.

So you wouldn't place your child for adoption, but what about foster care? Suppose you were traveling out of state. You are injured in a car accident and hospitalized. Thankfully, your child is uninjured but needs someplace to stay until relatives can come get him/her. Would you want your child placed in a homosexual home? Even overnight?

This whole issue IS about children and having equal rights to raise someone else's children. But unlike inter-racial marriage, homosexuality is defined by a behavior, not an appearance.

[eccentric]

comments invited

[anniegetyourgun]

Besides, homosexuals have full rights to marriage. There is no discrimination - they can find someone of the opposite sex to marry.

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

[MEG33]

Absurd comparison.

[truthingod]

There is no marriage covenant except between one man and one woman. Marriage was a covenant instituted by God. People who wish to live a lifestyle contrary to what God Himself ordained, should not seek to have that choice be accepted by those who see their activity as a sinful lifestyle choice.

[tdadams]

The courts told her she had relinquinshed her right to object to who raised her birth-son.

The courts were right. She did.

[FormerLib]

Skin color has nothing to do with moral behavior. Homosexuality is a moral affront to the good people of this nation and it is tyranny to use the power of government to force acceptance of it upon them.

[CoolGuyVic]

'Marriage was a covenant instituted by God. People who wish to live a lifestyle contrary to what God Himself ordained, should not seek to have that choice be accepted by those who see their activity as a sinful lifestyle choice.'

Then don't marry them in your church.

Or better yet, get government out of the marriage business.

[Mr Spock]

There is no marriage covenant except between one man and one woman. Marriage was a covenant instituted by God. People who wish to live a lifestyle contrary to what God Himself ordained, should not seek to have that choice be accepted by those who see their activity as a sinful lifestyle choice.

agreed. Why is that so hard for them to understand this I wonder?

[FormerLib]

This has already happened for one mother who placed her baby for adoption and then found he was given to a homosexual couple. The courts told her she had relinquinshed her right to object to who raised her birth-son.

On a related topic, I would strongly encourage anyone considering putting a child up for adoption to consider working through Catholic Charities or through some other agency that will give the birth parent(s) final approval on the placement of the child.

Some friends of mine adopted a child via Catholic Charities and they (and the other potential adoptive families) were screened by the young woman with the assistance of a family placement specialist.

[maestro]

Comparing homosexual marriage to inter-racial marriage ^

What this really means may be,.......

Comparing future polygamous homosexual marriage to future polygamous inter-racial marriage?

(A DNC Lawyer-village)

[dmz]

That is the part of this issue that I don't get. Those against gay marriage using the argument that marriage is "a covenant instituted by God" still want that covenant enforced by the secular authorities.

Why is that?

[FormerLib]

Or better yet, get government out of the marriage business.

Okay, so that would mean no more divorce courts, no court-ordered alimony or child support, no family court, and no government support for dependent familes and children.

Tell you what, you make those changes first then get back to us, OK?

[whereasandsoforth]

Just because some people were concerned about mixed race marriages because of the children, and just because that was long ago, doesn't mean those concerns were or are wrong. There are a lot of things to consider about mixed-race children still to this day. "For the children" was not a bogus cause then or now.

I heard that caller you mentioned. He sounded like a very ignorant person. Homosexuality is not a race. To compare the the two is ignorant, or wishful thinking. Homosexuals of any race can practice their homosex or not as they desire. They can even stop being homosexuals. But they annot change their race. Race is a whole package. Homosexuality is practices and choices.

[Huck]

Besides, homosexuals have full rights to marriage. There is no discrimination - they can find someone of the opposite sex to marry.

Exactly.

[Modernman]

The best solution would be to get government out of the marriage game and allow consenting adults to enter into any contracts (except contracts that are illegal on other grounds, such as suicide pacts or slavery contracts) they desire. The state will not recognize marriage of any kind.

[King Black Robe]

Gays already are foster parents in most states. It's appalling, both that it is happening, and that the public doesn't know it. Things like that have remained below the radar (thanks to an enabling media). Communities will scream about Big Brothers allowing gay mentoris and say nothing about all the foster kids. The media conveniently allows this kind of thing to go unreported. They do not want to look like bigots (I think they look like idiots).

Children is a big issue. Sure. But I think morality is just as big. Yeah, that big bad word: MORALITY! Homosexuality is not a natural function of human beings. It is a perversion of nature. I think it is idiotic to call it marriage. Some say, "But we love each other sooooo much." Well, if love is the only reason for the marriage contract, then how about friends, roommates, adult children and their parents, relatives....anyone you love and would like to help out with government benefits? Are all forms of love not equal? Is marriage only about sex? If it is, then shouldn't it be that which nature has designed us for?

The point of marriage is to structure civilization. Read the philosophers. Many of them had very interesting ideas about how to structure a society different from the one we have. All of their theories failed. Human civilization is best structured in familes. Calling any sexual hook-up a family isn't just tragic for children, it's devestating for our entire culture. It touches all of our values and all of our relationships. It redefines not only marriage, but also every other kind of love. It redefines all the simple things we take for granted. Minor example: public restrooms, dressing rooms, gym locker rooms, childhood slumber parties and same-sex friendships, etc....

[truthingod]

When I got married , I did not expect the state to give an okay for it. Just when did government decide to give someone a license to get married anyways?

[FormerLib]

Because protecting families is the first order of preserving the general welfare. Without them, your society tends to go the way of Sparta.

Also, haven't you noticed that those attempting to force acceptance of "homosexual marriage" are primarily seeking the force of government as the preferred method to force acceptance of this upon the good people of this nation?

Being that our government rules by the consent of the governed, the people of this nation have the right to say "No way, too gay!" to all of this.

[Modernman]

Okay, so that would mean no more divorce courts, no court-ordered alimony or child support, no family court, and no government support for dependent familes and children.

"Divorces" would be handled based on the provisions of the contract entered into by the married people, as would alimony. Child support/custody would still be a topic for the courts, as a contract between two (or more) people would not be binding as to any children involved.

Government support for dependent families and children has nothing to do with the marriage relationship.