Morford: The Love That Killed America (Bible-clutching homophobes recoil, violently to gay marriage)

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Wednesday, November 19, 2003 | Mark Morford, Always a Bridesmaid

[presidio9]

The gays are marching in. The end is near. Sheer unadulterated evil and scary anal sex and superlative hair products and new blasts of fresh happy love are to be unleashed anew upon the country. Horror is nigh. Everyone into the bunker.

[stayout]

The one argument I haven't heard in support of the traditional definition of marriage is the one I think is actually the strongest: if gay marriage is legalized, heterosexual men will be less inclined to get married. Marriage will be seen as something that "gay" people do, not straight guys. Making it harder for women to keep and attract mates with which to raise children is not a good policy decision. That job is hard enough as it is.

In ohter words, once the value of marriage is diminished in that way, who will be most hurt? Children of course.

[johnb838]

IF marriage is ever defined as anything besides being between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation (and we already allow too many exceptions to that), then there is no reason anybody should get any tax or other special benefits for being married. It is oppressively unfair to single people to shoulder part of the burden for sh!t-eating homos who decide to shack up.

[bc2]

Here is a good quote:

"It's time to limit the federal government to only those powers and functions specifically delegated to it in the Constitution. It's time to get rid of the personal income tax and the IRS."

http://www.garynolan.com/issues.shtml

How about we fund the legitimate functions of government, like National Defense and Infastructure using uniform Duties, Imposts and Excises, just as the United States Constitution authorizes our Congress to do in Aricle 1 Section 8 ?

Is that too much to ask? To follow the Constitution?

[Truth Table]

Actually, the more relevant point is: Where does one draw the line, and why draw the line in the first place? For example, what is wrong with one man taking several wives leagally?

Or a man and a Dog for that matter...?

[bc2]

You are missing the point. The government should have no involvement in the marriage issue. No one should get tax credits for being married, hetero or homosexual.

Instead of doing a disservice to our nation and our culture, and destroying what is left of the powers of the Constitution in the process, why don't you argue that the government get out of the marriage issue? This is not a power of the State, it is an issue between two people, their Church, their God, and their insurance companies.

[johnb838]

The push by perverts for marriage is all about being accepted by the majority

Actually, I believe it is all about the push by the neo-communists to destroy the fabric of America and the Judeo-Christian culture, and to destabilize the country until it descends into civil war, at which time they will REALLY make their move. Of course, their first move will be to kill all the homosexual and liberal useful idiots that did their work for them.

[biblewonk]

Does this guy actually get paid to write this sh*t?

[longtermmemmory]

Legally speaking love has NOTHING to do with marriage. Homosexuals just don't get it. It is about reproduction, raising children, and all the issues attached to being a mother and a father.

[B Knotts]

And ask yourself this: would a similarly hateful statement made against homosexuals have been published in the Chronicle?

Absolute double standard, ain't it?

[Truth Table]

why don't you argue that the government get out of the marriage issue?

1. Too late to put the Genie back into the bottle. Too much tax revenue...

2. As a historical matter of fact, government has an compelling interest in what happens to children concieved and born to married couples. (We are now interested in those concieved and born outside of marriage as well now...)

[bc2]

people! remind me again what part of the Constitution authorizes the govt to have ANY involvement in the marriage issue!

Tell me again why any free man or woman would not find it MORALLY REPREHENSABLE that the government could dictate the terms of their marriage; instead of it being dictated by God and his Church?!

sheesh! and you guys say the homosexual activists are bad, sometimes I think these people are a close 2nd!

[bc2]

both of your statements are rediculious and I doubt you can back them up with any fact or sound reasoning.

we could use your statement number 1 to give up on fighting gun control, smoking bans, abolishment of private property; in fact ANYthing we are currently fighting. "Well, too late, might as well give up". No thanks, not me.

Statement #2 can not be backed up by fact or reason.

[T.Smith]

Are you under the impression that I advocate state sanction of marriage? I don't remember saying anything to that effect.

[bc2]

that is why until we can abolish the income tax and scale the federal govt back to a Constitutional size we must end tax credits for married couples.

[bc2]

sorry, mixed up post... forgive me!

:)