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.

[hunter112]

And while many in this forum argue that there is no "right to marry", I think that the Courts will agree with the Massachusetts Court when it said that "the right to marry is not a privilege conferred by the State, but a fundamental right that is protected against unwarranted State interference."

Reminds me of something I read last night, while doing a bit of research on the aforementioned Griswold vs. Connecticut case, the Court said that rights concerning marriage were fundamantal human rights that predated the Bill of Rights, and could not be eliminated by them. Some tortured legal reasoning, perhaps, but they make up nearly forty year old precident that will no doubt be cited.

So where does that leave those who want to stop this from happening?

Set standards for each individual State, and stand on the Constitutional argument that defining marriage is a State power as defined by the US Constitution.

It would appear that even the option of firewalling this to MA with civil union is dead. If the MA legislature had rushed to present a civil union plan as accomplished fact before going to the MA court, they might have peeled one judge away from the majority.

[tdadams]

You crack me up. You're equating my reasoned debate with homosexual activism and suggest I should be booted from FR. What's the matter, can't withstand the criticism so you silence the critic? Seems awfully reminiscent of the fascist left, don't you think?

Spitzer himself has said that dismissing his survey would be to dismiss an awful lot of psychological and psychiatric research.

Is that really that profound? Think about it. You think anyone who dismisses your opinion is missing out on a lot of wisdom. So did Ross Perot and Richard Nixon. A lot of people here think they are oracles of wisdom, without whose advice the nation would be less than perfect.

Why should we think Spitzer wouldn't also fall into that category. Yet, it's undeniable that his research methodology was substandard, and it can be said with certainly that his subjects were not objective, and his results are therefore flawed.

I know it must be difficult for you to accept since his conclusion affirms your beliefs, but that doesn't change the facts.

[Twinkie]

So women need to be TOLD ahead of time that their baby
could go to a homosexual couple. It might inspire her
parents to help her decide not to place her baby for
adoption.

[FormerLib]

Actually, there are agencies which will ensure that the child will not be handed over to homosexuals. The worthwhile ones won't mind being asked the question in the first place.

[FormerLib]

Speaking of ignoring facts that contradict your beliefs, this is the elephant in the room that you've side-stepped: "LeVay has also stated gay activism was the reason behind the APA declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder."

That and the fact that there are numerous cases of homosexuals who have left the lifestyle.

[tdadams]

I haven't side stepped either of those points. Apparently you just missed it in the thread.

Any other false accusations you care to make at this time?

[EdReform]

If you make a contention, the burden is on you to be able to prove it conclusively... So, until you can back up what you post with some legitimate, objective citations, I'll continue to remain skeptical.

In reply 174, I asked you:

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.

You contend that homosexuality is innate. If you make a contention, the burden is on you to be able to prove it conclusively. So, until you can back up what you post with some legitimate, objective citations, I'll continue to remain skeptical.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Mine wasn't an attack, my post simply points to the obvious.

You took no issue with the other poster.

You are a hypocrite.

If the shoe fits...

[Luis Gonzalez]

The problem is that you can't predict what the final verbiage of the Marriage Amendment will be.

You can't predict how the opposition (and there will be strong opposition to this) will impact the Amendment.

And you can't possibly discount the possibility that if in fact an Amendment ever does get ratified, it won't actually accomplish the exact opposite of what everyone is trying to do.

[scripter]

Your reasoned debate comment is ridiculous. The facts have been laid out and your only response is to denigrate the facts. Simply stating that your position is identical to homosexual activists is nothing more than an observation, but seeing how you're so willing to read into what others say speaks volumes, whether that someone is a freeper, LeVay or Spitzer. If you continue to post identitically to homosexual activists I will continue to point it out.

What's profound is your unwillingness to admit Spitzer found the study convincing. So convincing that he changed his mind and that's something you have no answer to other than denigrating the study.

Deal with it. Spitzer changed his mind that homosexuals can leave the lifestyle. Deal with the fact that LeVay is a homosexual, activist and scientist and stated it was gay activism that was clearly the force that propelled the APA to declassify homosexuality.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I see you're being "engaged" by this thread's resident legal Gilligan.

[FormerLib]

You are a hypocrite.

Sorry, but that is an attack...even if you are using the word incorrectly.

And I doubt I want to try on one of your shoes.

[FormerLib]

Amusing, isn't it, when they claim that they have no stake in the homosexual agenda.

I bet they'd have us believe that teetotaling "libertarians" were behind the repeal of Prohibition! LOL!

[Luis Gonzalez]

No, I'm not using it incorrectly, not only am I using it correctly, I'm directing it at the right individual.

You took me to task for something that I said to another poster, and willfully ignored the fact that he had initiated the exchange with an ad hominem attack on me.

This makes you a hypocrite.

[FormerLib]

I haven't side stepped either of those points. Apparently you just missed it in the thread.

Apparently so! Please point out your previous reponse concerning LeVay's actions.

Any other false accusations you care to make at this time?

Having not made any up to this point, I'll file this under "Yet Another Dodge."

[scripter]

First the guy was skeptical of the quotes, and when the quotes are fully referenced the subject is changed. It's a game played by homosexual activists as well.