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.
|
Skip to comments.
Comparing homosexual marriage to inter-racial marriage
vanity
| 13 Feb 04
| Linda Martinez
Posted on 02/13/2004 11:22:02 AM PST by eccentric
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 281-296 next last
To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
I am very irritated by the comparison of mixed race marriage and same sex sodomy.
I have several good friends who are mixed race couples, and they are disgusted by this comparison. The homo-activists themselves don't even believe it, they only use it to pull our strings; so we won't think of ourselves as "haters" or "bigots" or be called so by others.
Anyone with two brains cells to rub together knows that inherent race and (unhealthy and immoral) behavior choices have nothing in common.
If anyone wants to be added to or dropped from this very intense ping list, pingify me!
21
posted on
02/13/2004 11:47:37 AM PST
by
little jeremiah
(everyone is entitled to their opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to be right.)
To: CoolGuyVic
Or better yet, get government out of the marriage business. Then what standards do you set for adoptions and foster parents?
To: whereasandsoforth
Inter racial marriage and inter racial pre-marital sex have resulted in many children who dont know their identity. At least with homosexual marriage there will be no children ,unless produced by turkey basters or the scientific equivalent. What we do have to stop are two perverts adopting straight kids and ruining their lives by confusing them beyond belief.
23
posted on
02/13/2004 11:48:44 AM PST
by
sgtbono2002
(I aint wrong, I aint sorry , and I am probably going to do it again.)
To: truthingod
Just when did government decide to give someone a license to get married anyways? About the time that marriage became a legally enforceable contract. You don't need a marriage license to get married, after all. You only need one to have the government acknowledge that it is a legal and binding contract.
Of course, the people of this nation have a say in what contracts their government will and will not enforce. Representative republics are like that, don't you know.
24
posted on
02/13/2004 11:49:31 AM PST
by
FormerLib
(We'll fight the good fight until the very end!)
To: eccentric
And that is what the push for legal homosexual marriage is all about: the children. What children? Whose children? Two homosexuals can never procreate with each other. There is always a third party involved. This is all about homosexuals laying claim to other people's children.
25
posted on
02/13/2004 11:49:47 AM PST
by
Alouette
(I chose to NOT have an abortion -- 9 times.)
To: King Black Robe
I agree with you. Everyone keeps dancing around the real issue with homosexuality. It is perversion. If anyone takes the time to read about the demise of Sodom and Gomorrah--thus the root of the word sodomy which defines homosexuality. They might find, that the reason those cities no longer exist is because that sin had made its way from the older men all the way down to the boys. Sounds like America today? It also has to do with the fact that these perverted men had tried to lure the angels sent to destroy Sodom out into the public arena to rape them. God won't let this perversion touch the church he institued without a response. We all better be on the watch!
To: eccentric
Does Inter-racial sex cause AIDS?
To: Modernman
And again, you don't need a marriage license to get married, after all. You only need one to have the government acknowledge that it is a legal and binding contract. Of course, the people of this nation have a say in what contracts their government will and will not enforce.
28
posted on
02/13/2004 11:50:54 AM PST
by
FormerLib
(We'll fight the good fight until the very end!)
Comment #29 Removed by Moderator
To: FormerLib
Ok, thanks.
To: FormerLib
"Tell you what, you make those changes first then get back to us, OK?" If I could, I would.
Family courts and the current participants in marriage have damaged it immensely already. Its like saying "You smashed my mirror!", when your car was rusted out and on blocks already.
31
posted on
02/13/2004 11:52:56 AM PST
by
CoolGuyVic
(I didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me.)
To: sgtbono2002
As Jamie White of STAR 98.7 in Los Angeles keeps reminding us, "You can't fertilize a turd!"
32
posted on
02/13/2004 11:53:16 AM PST
by
FormerLib
(We'll fight the good fight until the very end!)
To: eccentric
The argument fails because it pre-supposes that morality is mutable, which of course it is not.
Racism was immoral one hundred years ago just as today. Homosexuality was immoral one hundred years ago just as it is today. We could all agree to gay marriage and it would still be immoral.
And FWIIW I personally find it very offensive to compare homosexual marriage to inter-racial mariage.
33
posted on
02/13/2004 11:53:33 AM PST
by
BenLurkin
(Socialism is Slavery)
To: eccentric
There is no comparison.
34
posted on
02/13/2004 11:54:15 AM PST
by
ampat
(to)
To: whereasandsoforth
There are a lot of things to consider about mixed-race children still to this day. The threat to mixed race children comes from small-mined, prejudiced people. In my opinion, that makes this a pretty accurate analogy.
35
posted on
02/13/2004 11:54:41 AM PST
by
tdadams
To: FormerLib
Of course, the people of this nation have a say in what contracts their government will and will not enforce. Sure, but I'm saying that there should be no such thing as a "marriage contract." Consenting adults should be free to enter into any contract that lays out their relationsip to one another, the terms under which the contract can be dissolved, how property is to be distributed upon dissolution etc. etc.
You could do that now, if you want to. However, keep in mind, if we allow government to define marriage, activist judges may very well end up forcing the country to accept gay marriage as equal to regular marriage. By eliminating marriage as something the government does, that risk goes away permanently.
36
posted on
02/13/2004 11:55:22 AM PST
by
Modernman
("When you want to fool the world, tell the truth." -Otto von Bismarck)
To: CoolGuyVic
Family courts and the current participants in marriage have damaged it immensely already.That's quite true, but moving towards acceptance of "homosexual marriage" will result in even more harm to this essential institution. Only those with some desire (concious or otherwise) to completely destroy the American family are in support of this
37
posted on
02/13/2004 11:56:18 AM PST
by
FormerLib
(We'll fight the good fight until the very end!)
To: eccentric
Of all places, someone at DU actually made an intelligent point:
Where are the people who are not allowed to vote because of their sexual orientation?
Where are the people who must drink from separate water fountains and use separate rest rooms because of their sexual orientation?
Where are the people who can not own real and personal property because of their sexual orientation?
Where are the people who must sit in the back of the bus because of their sexual orientation?
Where are the people who are not permitted in restaurants, hotels, sporting venues, and other public places because of their sexual orientation?
Where are the people who are not allowed to play collegiate or professional sports because of their sexual orientation?
To: FormerLib
"Because protecting families is the first order of preserving the general welfare."So then, in a country with a divorce rate over 50%, higher even in second and third marriages, with one million abortions a year, and fornication and cohabitation being the norm not the exception...why aren't families being protected from us?
39
posted on
02/13/2004 11:56:28 AM PST
by
Luis Gonzalez
(The Gift Is To See The Trout.)
To: 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.
40
posted on
02/13/2004 11:57:14 AM PST
by
drb9
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 281-296 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson