| 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.
Bull.
There are cultural issues in interracial marriages (I speak from first-hand experience in relating to my sister and her husband), but they do NOT compare to same-gendered relationships in any way, shape or form.
While I don't like the idea of amending the Constitution (I think this is better left to the states), this is an issue that won't go away.
There are too many leftists who fall into the trap of trying to compare those relationships and the percieved "discrimination" with them to the very real discrimination that I have faced in my past as a black man. It is insulting at best to make the comparison.
If two guys (or girls for that matter), wanna get up close and personal, that's their business (and better left behind their closed doors). But I'm not going to pretend to want to sanction it just to satisfy the liberals' misbegotten sense of self-guilt.
Black conservative ping
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
So your solution to this is trusting the Federal government?
And you don't see what's wrong with that picture?
The Federal government promised to "fix" the high price of Cable television, it's gone up immensely since they got involved.
The Federal government promised to fix the high cost of airline travel once, it wasn't until they left the airlines alone that pricing dropped precipitously.
Did the number of abortions in the US go up or down since the Feds got involved in the issue?
Haven't you wondered why the gay rights lobby is not fighting you tooth and nail on this idea of a Constitutional Amendment?
Because they understand that a Constitutional Amendment will take years to get to vote, and by then, they'll have won the war at the State level.
Once you have a million married gay couples in the US, the fight is over.
Quit looking to the Feds to help, and batten down the hatched in your State.
Your whole argument hinges on your belief that homosexuality is a behavior and not an innate characteristic. This is something that cannot be proven one way or another and to pretend it can be is dishonest.
it is very interesting that NO proof exists of anything inherited causing homosexual "urges"
There is no gene that causes someone to be left handed. Is that also just a behavior?
thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle through therapy
Conversion therapy is a joke. Without exception, every medical and scientific organization has condemned it as either ineffective or actually harmful. There may be some homosexuals who can act heterosexual (for a while or forever) but it doesn't change who they are.
I never said that. I'm the one who will be defending the Republic and the moral foundations of our society that allows it to exist!
If you're making the argument that it is more important to define people as conservatives solely because they claim to be while conducting themselves as morally-deprived (and depraved!) leftists, then you have a reality problem equal to the candidates for the nomination of the Democratic Party!
The definition of marriage is and always has been the union of one man and one woman.
That early America perverted the meaning of marriage by passing unconstitutional laws based on race is not justification for perverting the meaning of marriage now by equating one man + one woman and one man + one man.
They simply are not the same nor does one equal the other.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The solution is to prohibit the Federal government from forcing other states into recognizing another state's societal lunacy.
And acceptance of inter-racial marriage was done via the legislative process with this tiny group of rabble-rousers know they cannot do.
I suggest you look up the 1967 Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia.
I want someone to help me with this. I am pissed when the sodomites say that being homosexual is like being black facing discrimination. Since when is perversion acceptable behavior? How is homosexual "marriage" a civil right? Someone please tell me. Since time and memorial marriage has been defined as a legal covenant between a man and a woman. It is the fabric of civilized society. If the sodomites want to have a union like marriage they would have to find a spouse of the opposite sex. Since that is how marriage has been defined. To my understanding can't a sodomite couple use the legal system to will possessions and a general power of attorney for other legal decisions? Please help me out </No Sarcasm>
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.