| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/14/2004 11:16:48 AM PST by Lead Moderator, reason:
Since discussion of the issues and article ended long ago, the rest of the discussion ends now. Those who were continuing the flame war consider this your warning- I don’t care who drew first blood. That was pulled and it should have ended it. Both sides were continuing it, and neither side has a single thing to whine about when I end up suspending of banning you. So don’t push it. |
Posted on 02/13/2004 11:22:02 AM PST by 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.
If homosexuality is genetic, and I take no position on that one way or the other, it's probably the result of a mutation that's been in the human gene pool for a long time.
It's not genetic. Natural selection precludes the possibility.
What bull. It's amazing how many converts there are to Darwinism when this subject come up.
That was uncalled for, don't you think?
Yep. It is fairly well documented that there was/is a male bisexual bridge to the heterosexual population, at least in the industrialized world. The relatively large number of heterosexual infections in places like the greater San Francisco Bay Area is due to a great extent to this behavioral bridge.
If this bridge didn't exist, it would greatly reduce the epidemiological footprint in the first world. In the third world, the problem is often a side effect of other medical issues.
lovely folks, huh???
free dixie,sw
Well, I didn't catch until his irrate response that it could be read to mean I was calling him a queer. Having been accused of it, I decided to follow suit with my later comment.
I meant to mean, he is always arguing as a gay advocate; therefore, if it talks like the enemy....it's probably the enemy. All persons pushing gay marriage are not queers, but I consider all of them my enemy (the analogy began on an earlier post). I am not interested in knowing his sex habits.
If I am wrong about Luis, then he can say. Is he or is he not for gay marriage? If he favors it, then he is arguing disingenuously.
If you can manage to get a dog to recite wedding vows, I'll be seriously impressed.
Those who use theological justifications are the only ones who get quoted in the news media. When GWB talks about using the Constitutional amendment process to "protect the sacrament of marriage," it makes a lot of people wonder why government is in the business of protecting sacraments.
You got that right. My take is that that question is emblematic of the cultural divide. As a skeptic, I think of it differently than a sacrament. But how to express that to Americans in general? Only within religious framework has our civilization conceptualized certain basic things, and we do not yet have an equivalent framework that is strictly secular, if such a thing is even possible.
LOL. Well, we wouldn't want to discriminate against the language challenged.
Sorry, but I don't see how this answers my two questions. What is the source of your definition of marriage? (Hint - It's not in my Merriam-Webster's). What basis do you have for assuming that this definition will have any lasting appeal?
In no way does that contradict my contention that homosexuals can act as heterosexuals, forever in some cases. That doesn't change who they innately are.
Would you please tell me how you're qualified to make this undocumented statement? Do you have a PhD or MD in this field? Is it based on some research you've published?
If your statement, that doesn't change who they innately are, is based on published research, would you please cite the title of the article and the name of the peer reviewed journal in which it was published? Thanks.
When those on your side of the argument do the same to substantiate their opinions, I'll consider it.
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.
No difference between gay and inter-racial marriage???
We report, you decide.
I'm convinced he's not gay- it's all an act.
Idealized, traditional heterosexuality told us that you were not to have sexual relations until you were married and then you were supposed to stay monogamous. If everyone followed these guidelines (I know most don't, but humor me) there would be virtually no sexually transmitted diseases in the heterosexual community.
The homosexual community has no such guidelines. They have no moral structure to their relationships. There are no rules saying you should remain pure until you find your same-sex life partner. There is no strong tradition encouraging gay couples to stay together for life. In fact one could point out that the gay culture encourages experimentation and open relationships. I recall a gay comedian talking about being broken up after his boyfriend of six months moved out. "That's the gay equivalent of a 50 year marriage for you breeders!"
Even my gay friends (I live in Fort Lauderdale and have LOTS of gay friends and acquaintances) say that gay marriage is not desired by most of their circle. A few would like the option, but even their comments of "how would you handle divorce" and "as soon as you do, you'll meet the man of your dreams" speak to looking at marriage as something that would be designed to be exited.
My main concern is that this will further water down an already beleaguered institution and cause it to become completely meaningless. I cannot imagine that being good for our society in the long term.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.