| 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.
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.
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.
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.
Easier said than done. Let's see what you can do.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Please, don't be naive.
We are ALL responsible for these things.
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.
When were you told that maintaining the Republic would be easy?
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'!
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.
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.
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.