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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Read through this.

It's long, but all the information contained is pertinent to your post.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"But we are going to lose the whole stinking war unless we engage the battles where the enemy is waging them."

And the enemy is waging this war at the State level.

[FormerLib]

You must fight the enemy where you find him, then restore order everywhere else.

Right on, King, right on!

I've got to go so I trust you will keep fighting the good fight! Lord knows our enemies are 'Legion!'

[swarthyguy]

Frankly, I like miscegenation.

And the most interracial institution in the world, filled with products of miscegenation, is any US Army Base.

Of course, what that has to do with gay marriage, talk about an oxymoron, is anybody's guess.

Silly comparison. Just alienates people while not increasing support for those against gay marriage.

[FormerLib]

And how many states have now passed laws stating that marriage is between a man and a woman? (They better get started passing laws stating that grass is green as well!)

Wanna bet the homo activists attempt to use the federal government to attack them?

I'll wait to see you on the front lines defending against that!

[HouTom]

I don't agree with the comparision to inter-racial marriages. I think there are much stronger arguments and merits for same-sex unions.

However, I can think of several significant ways that homosexuality is not like bestiality.

[King Black Robe]

That doesn't change who they innately are.

god, is that you?

[HouTom]

and of those thousands, how many are living healthy productive lives today as heterosexual couples???



I can name about 20 names who went through that therapy and now have found themselves back in the gay community again, wondering what the hell they were thinking.

[jwalsh07]

If you don't want same sex marriage, then stand up and renounce all the privileges you receive because of your relationship status and say that Government should get out of the religion business.

Government is not in the religion business. In fact the same courts that are legislating from the bench vis a vis perverting the meaning of the word marriage are entirely hostile to religion as a rule.

One doesn't have to renounce the states interest in a stable family structure because of his opposition to the Orwellian changes in the meaning of words. It's a false choice offered by you and totally rejected by, at the least, me.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It seems that I understand it better than you do.

If "we" were both the Federal government, and the States, the founders would not have been so weary of the Feds, and impose such restrictions.

What I do understand is that you may be a former liberal, but old habits are hard to break, and your ad hominem attacks are indicative that you may be former a Liberal, but it's a recent conversion.

[MEG33]

I am sorry for the pain this late exposure of living a lie caused your family.It must have caused a lot of trauma to those who loved him.

[cyborg]

wow

[philetus]

There is no comparison unless the inter-racial couple are both men with huge hemoroids.

[gcruse]

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

When you think of the new propensity for shacking up, as we used to call it, and the fifty-fifty chance of divorce, alongside the six-year average lifespan of heterosexual marriage you have to wonder

• Why the heteros think such a failed institution is worth  constitutional overkill and
• Why the homosexuals are so desperate to participate in something so degraded.

[EdReform]

BTTT

[NutCrackerBoy]

The enemy is waging this war at the State level.

And I am fighting the enemy in my state (Massachusetts). You make simplistic arguments against the FMA by evoking the fear of federal government taking over marriage. It wouldn't destroy federalism in marriage law.

The FMA has words; these words have meaning. If you read it and eschew the type of caricature favored by opposers of the Patriot Act, you may agree the FMA would clarify things. Like many proposed constitutional amendments these days, national and state, it is mainly aimed to reign in judiciaries.

Also, the FMA may not have to be brought to full fruition for it to have a preemptive effect. Then it again, it may.

[geedee]

Thanks. All those who think homosexuality is a victim-less lifestyle needs to re-think their positions. My family has been completely, completely devastated.

[HouTom]

FormerLib wrote: "If they have their way, then marriage among groups without regard to the number, sex, age, familial relation, or species becomes the norm. If they want to strip marriage of meaning, then all meaning will be ultimately stripped."

The definition of marriage is a desire to create a union of two people based on love and respect. It is a "status" to others in the community that you have made a promise to be true to one another, to respect one another, to take care of one another. That you belong to each other. It is the symbolic giving over of independence to a shared existence.

Those are the elements that define marriage. Notice there is nothing there that says it has to be a man and a woman. No one is asking for you to understand or accept same sex marriage. You gave up that right when it became sanctioned by the government.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"And how many states have now passed laws stating that marriage is between a man and a woman?"

Don't you know?

WHY don't you know?

"In all, 37 states and the federal government have Defense of Marriage acts that say marriage can only be between a man and a woman."

"Ohio may soon become the 38th state; its Senate approved one of the most far-reaching gay marriage bans in the nation Wednesday, making only minor changes in a House-passed version. Going further than the laws in most states, Ohio's bill also would prohibit state employees from getting benefits for domestic partners, whether gay or straight."

"Proposed constitutional amendments that would ban gay marriage have been introduced in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Michigan; one is expected soon in Alabama. An Idaho Republican, Rep. Henry Kulczyk, plans to introduce a similar measure there, to the dismay of some Democrats." -- Source

If this issue is of such monumental importance to you, why didn't you know the answer to your question?

Better yet, why didn't you take the ten seconds it took me to find the answer?

[Bikers4Bush]

In your opinion you may consider them significant. In my opinion I wouldn't.

I can think of several ways that the two are alike. Neither can or will ever produce offspring and are not taken part in with the intent of producing offspring, neither are accepted by most cultures or religions and both facilitate the spread of disease.

And neither are natural.