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.

[little jeremiah]

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!

[eccentric]

Or better yet, get government out of the marriage business.

Then what standards do you set for adoptions and foster parents?

[sgtbono2002]

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.

[FormerLib]

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.

[Alouette]

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.

[truthingod]

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!

[Cowboy Bob]

Does Inter-racial sex cause AIDS?

[FormerLib]

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.

[truthingod]

Ok, thanks.

[CoolGuyVic]

"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.

[FormerLib]

As Jamie White of STAR 98.7 in Los Angeles keeps reminding us, "You can't fertilize a turd!"

[BenLurkin]

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.

[ampat]

There is no comparison.

[tdadams]

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.

[Modernman]

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.

[FormerLib]

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

[Always Right]

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?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"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?

[drb9]

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.