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.

[DWPittelli]

What's your point? (You linked me to a critique of the DMA.)

[HouTom]

Could you please site these studies, I'd like a good read.

[eccentric]

Homosexuals can already do most of what you're afraid they'll do. A single lesbian woman, for example, can foster a child, and can adopt a child. So, when you're travelling and get into an accident, such that your uninjured kids go into foster care until relatives arrive, you'll need to pin notes to their shirts saying "straight fosterers only" Or, just deal with it. Jeez.

And currently, we can try to oppose this. But what happenes when saying "Straight fosterers only" turns into a hate crime and homosexual couple have the backing of the federal government that they have EQUAL standing in custody issues? And God help us when affirmative action comes into the picture.

[Wordsmith]

The definition of marriage is a desire to create a union of two people based on love and respect.

What is the source of this definition? If this vague definition (vague enough that it could apply just as well to siblings or best friends) can replace the existing traditional definition, why can't it be subject to future reinterpretation as well?

[anniegetyourgun]

The old blame the institution fallacy. Nope, gc...marriage isn't the problem.

[Rudder]

The lady's friggin' goofy.

[HouTom]

Unfortunately there are heterosexual unions that neither can nor will promote offspring either. There are those who by surgery or by nature who are no longer able to produce offspring. So this distinction falls short.

Sexual intercourse spreads disease. I'm sure you realize that diseases have been, are being, and will be spread by heterosexual intercourse.

[NutCrackerBoy]

What happenes when saying "Straight fosterers only" turns into a hate crime?

Close family members should come immediately to take care of children put out of commission by an accident. That is the way strong families take care of things, and state-appointed foster parents would be unneeded in that case.

We should be doing everything we can to keep government out of the business of taking care of every person who has a problem. But if it is a given that we have this necessary evil to regulate, my choice of standards would not be restrictive on sexual orientation. Whatever the parents do in private, the standards would require that they maintain a wholesome environment for the kids.

[anniegetyourgun]

And 128 is the old exception makes the rule fallacy....

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

In discussing this subject the way you do, you give credence to the homosexual agenda. For example: homosexuals are not, in general, gay; there is no such thing as homosexual (i.e., same-sex) marriage. Don't fall into the trap of validating the hedonists' agenda by using their language!

[Bikers4Bush]

By surgery is a choice, by nature is unfortunate. To compare the two to homosexual sex is at the least dishonest.

Heterosexual sex is not responsible for bringing and inflicting the black plague of our age on us. Beastiality and homosexual sex however are.

[Bikers4Bush]

Same old fallacy, same worn out arguement.

[cyborg]

I am young enough to remember when AIDS was GRID (gay related immune deficiency). Seems to me that some heterosexual men got bored and decided to 'explore'.

[stand watie]

what makes me MOST angry about the so-called "gay movement" is that they want the "freedom" to don things in public that you & i would get jailed for with a person of the opposite sex.

their "pee in" was nauseating!

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

what makes me MOST angry about the so-called "gay movement" is that they want the "freedom" to do things in public that you & i would get jailed for with a person of the opposite sex.

their "pee in" was nauseating!

free dixie,sw

[Bikers4Bush]

Speculation is that it was introduced to the hetero population by someone who thought they were bi.

[Modernman]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The solution is to prohibit the Federal government from forcing other states into recognizing another state's societal lunacy.

Can't disagree with this. Problem is, unless we can get a constitutional amendment passed (which I don't think will happen), we have to rely on the courts ruling the right way.

[Always Right]

Marriage may not be perfect, but it is still by far the best method for raising children. The only reason for the government to even care about marriage is for the raising of children. BTW, the failure of marriage is not the principle of it, it is the selfishness of the individuals. If two gay guys want insurance, WHY DON'T BOTH OF THEM GET A JOB.

[tdadams]

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

Not to dismiss the trauma your family has experienced, but there are lots of other families who go through similar experiences and aren't traumatized. Some parents accept and respect their children for who they are.