Comparing homosexual marriage to inter-racial marriage

vanity | 13 Feb 04 | Linda Martinez

[Luis Gonzalez]

There are Holy Matrimonies, and there are civil unions.

Get the government out of the marriage business and we don't have this problem!

[Gopher Broke]

There is NO comparison between these 2 things.

People cannot help the skin color with which they are born....but they have a choice on taking up homosexual behavior and lifestyle.

In spite of all the biased research going on right now in desparation, trying to PROVE a homosexual gene....it is very interesting that NO proof exists of anything inherited causing homosexual "urges".

Clearly, homosexual behavior is chosen...that is why thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle through therapy...although the liberal media refuses to report the many that leave that destructive lifestyle.

[Bikers4Bush]

Homosexuality is more akin to beastiality than it is to inter-racial marriage.

[CoolGuyVic]

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

Not sure what that has to do with marriage.

As far as standards, I think a thorough background and financial stability check would be a good start.

[truthingod]

I agree with you. We must be very careful not to let the judicial system or the legislative system define marriage. The definition is God ordained, not by men. Our response is to accept it and enjoy it. The culture must be the ones to define by how we live, what marriage is. We may cheer the efforts or legislators to help in this fight, but ultimately it is up to the decent people of this nation to define marriage.

[FormerLib]

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.

If you see this as a good end, by all means, seek to enact such a system via legislation.

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.

At which time, it will become necessary to replenish the tree of liberty.

By eliminating marriage as something the government does, that risk goes away permanently.

This only would open a box to more social ills that would result in the end of this society. Sorry, but I'll have to oppose your plan as well as theirs.

[little jeremiah]

Inter racial marriage and inter racial pre-marital sex have resulted in many children who dont know their identity.

I disagree - one's identity is so much more than racial background. The bodily identity - "I'm black, Filipino, Samoan" etc - is really an external, superficial identity. The body is a shell for the soul. The soul isn't black, Asian, etc.

It's one thing to appreciate one's physical heritage, but to solely identify with race or ethnicity generates hatred for those who are different. For instance, when I was a kid, I (a white kid) had a best friend who was black, and hung out with a lot of black kids. There was not the racial hatred then (in the early 60s) that there is now. The more people have as their primary identity their race, the more they're going to hate those who look different.

[FormerLib]

Get the government out of the marriage business and we don't have this problem!

Easier said than done. Let's see what you can do.

[kabar]

I would ask the proponents of gay marriage to give their definition of marriage. More than likely, they will respond with two loving adults. I would follow-up and ask if there is a limit on the number of adults who can get married together. After all, Islam, the religion of more than a billion people and the Mormons, permit polygamy. Do they have a problem with the State establishing any limitations on the definition of marriage and who can get married?

What the gay marriage proponents are doing is establishing the framework for the discussion, i.e., it is a matter of equal treatment under the law. I would respond by making them give us a definition of marriage and answering the question about society's right to impose any limitations on marriage. There are also signicant fiscal and legal issues such as social security benefits, child support, divorce law, alimony, etc.

[Modernman]

There are Holy Matrimonies, and there are civil unions.

Well put. I would go even further- there are Holy Matrimonies, and there are civil contracts. No church is required to accept the moral validity of any contract.

[FormerLib]

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...

Exactly, all of these things have flowed from leftist tripe! The last thing we need to do is inflict more harm on the institution of marriage. Thanks for helping to prove the point.

[roadcat]

Inter racial marriage and inter racial pre-marital sex have resulted in many children who dont know their identity.

If they are born here, they are American. That's their identity. Liberals may try to confuse them. But many who identify themselves as American first, are much happier and lead fulfilling lives.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"We must be very careful not to let the judicial system or the legislative system define marriage."

People are all hot to trot over this Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, thinking that this will solve all our problems.

I have two problems with that idea:

• "A Republic, if you can keep it." Benjamin Franklin -- This Marriage Amendment transfers the power to define marriage away from the States and to the Federal government...permanently. Of course, as we all know, the Feds are all about upholding traditional values.

• "Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem." Ronald Reagan -- A proposal to enact an Amendment to the US Constitution will walk in the door of the US Congress, we do not know what will walk out the other end.

[FormerLib]

If they have their way, then marriage among groups without regard to the number, sex, age, familial relation, or species becomes the norm. If they want to strip marriage of meaning, then all meaning will be ultimately stripped.

It's nothing more than another route to anarchy.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Exactly, all of these things have flowed from leftist tripe!"

Please, don't be naive.

We are ALL responsible for these things.

[FormerLib]

This Marriage Amendment transfers the power to define marriage away from the States and to the Federal government...permanently. Of course, as we all know, the Feds are all about upholding traditional values.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Because the homo activists will then force other states to recognize these nonsensical marriages and they use the force of the federal government to force it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Easier said than done."

When were you told that maintaining the Republic would be easy?

[AgThorn]

Well, what about the children? Interracial families still have to consider this, depending on where they choose to live, but different than it was in the 60s and 70's the places to live that would be a problem for interracial couples are getting down right fewer and fewer.

So, that being a given, how one makes a tie between inter-racial couples on this 'what about the children' issue in a comparison to homosexual couples, is beyond me.

For one, the only way same-sex couples can have children is to adopt or from a prior marriage and then it's still adopting by the new 'lover'. There is no "what about the children' comparison biologically, and the NEW "what about teh children" issue raised by adopted children is of immense different proportion. This is NOT now a socialogical issue in "what will the neighbors think" but is a direct, correct, and right on concern about "what about the children' in this environment ... i.e. the denial that 'same-sex' and 'pedophilia' are immensely related and statistically proven as such. What "healthy" environment is this to raise a child in? i.e. the concern in NOT about the neighbors anymore, and how this might affect the children, rather it is about the children and if they will grow up 'normal'!

[Modernman]

At which time, it will become necessary to replenish the tree of liberty.

Or, more likely, Americans will grumble a bit but do nothing. And the legal definition of marriage will change for all time.

This only would open a box to more social ills that would result in the end of this society

I'm not sure I see how. Allowing adults to enter into contracts in no way requires anyone else to do anything or to accept any type of behavior, since the contract is only binding upon the parties thereto. On the other hand, if the legal definition of marriage is changed by the judiciary to include gay marriages, the rest of us will be required to also recognize it: companies will be forced to extend the same benefits to all married couples, anti-discrimination laws that outlaw discrimination against married people will apply to gay marriages etc.

[FormerLib]

We are ALL responsible for these things.

Ah, the Clintonian "But everybody does it!" excuse. Yes, it all had that Billy Clinton smell to it.

By the way, do you often lay the blame for some people's actions on everyone? That's exactly what you are trying to do here. Pardon me for resisting.