This one.
Or, This one?
Hmmmmm ... Let me think!
| 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.
The problems with comparing gay marriages to interracial marriages are two-fold:
1) Race is a human construct. Sex is not.
2) The 14th Amendment was all about race. In contrast, the ERA (sexual Equal Rights Amendment) never passed federally, and when it was debated and passed in various states (including Massachusetts), its backers always denied it could be used to require gay marriage.
(More explanation on #1: There are an infinite number of possible "races," the boundaries between races are different depending on which features you look at, the features generally used to define the 3,4,5 or more races people tend to speak of are superficial, and even taking a set number of superficially defined races, there have always been many people of mixed races. In contrast, man has always had exactly two sexes (indeed, there have been two sexes for virtually all multicellular life for hundreds of millions of years), virtually everyone clearly belongs to one sex or another, sexual boundaries are not fluid (the number of people who change their apparent gender, like the number of hemaphrodites, is very small, and they generally achieve less apparent success than Michael Jackson has achieved in becoming a white man, and no real success at all in terms of reproduction), the anatomical and chemical differences between the sexes are real and nontrivial, and most states already allow transexuals to live and marry as their new preferred sex, so transexuals' "plight" isn't all that relevant. (I don't know what, if anything, happens to existing marriages after a sex change, but I bet most have legally continued for as long as the couple desired.)
Was he a Republican at the time? ;-) People change, sometimes for the better. I don't even know if he was the one who sued for divorce. For all I know, it was granted over his objections. And your point was?
Yes, the leftists were the ones that pushed the "no-fault" crapola so I do put the blame on them. Does that mean that no divorce is ever justified? Jesus Christ Himself said there was a just causes for a divorce, sexual immorality. After all this time, and the force of sexual immorality are still on the attack.
But that solution is already written into the Constitution, and you are advocating amending the Constitution to do the exact opposite of what you want done!
You want the Constitution Amended to force the States into accepting the Federal government's definition of marriage...whatever that may actually be, and whatever they may decide to do (and it may not even be the definition that you want!) rather than allowing the States the right to decide what they want to do!
Remember prohibition?
Enact Amendments to each State's Constitution, and make them fight fifty States.
Hello liberals who like to pretend you follow science? Explain the physical characteristics and anatomical features that matich this claim of homosexuality being equal to heterosexuality. Does zero equal infinity? I think not.
In no way does that contradict my contention that homosexuals can act as heterosexuals, forever in some cases. That doesn't change who they innately are.
Because the Federal government bases certain decisions and enforces certain laws based upon the definition of marriage. So long as that is true, the people have a right to determine that definition.
And we will have our say.
So, if back in your twenties you practiced free love in Haight Ashbury, smoked pot, shot up heroin, dropped acid, lived in a commune with twelve other people who practiced communal marriage, aborted half a dozen fetuses, and fornicated until you wore yourself thin, but have since embraced the GOP, you're not at fault for the decadence of today's society?
This one.Or, This one?
Hmmmmm ... Let me think!
I agree, and the text of the federal marriage amendment is hopelessly unclear on that score. But it's also possible that without a federal amendment, federal judges will likewise usurp "the right of the State to define marriage," by overturning the DMA, and forcing the federal gov't and even states to recognize marriages performed in any state. I'd be in favor of an amendment that made it clear that states were allowed to accept gay marriage, but also allowed to reject it.
Marriage is a sacrament man and woman with God
Sodomites are not invited...and the Holy Spirit will not/cannot consummate such an unholy union..
The problem is one of the most infectious groups of humans being able to pile on
the health insurance of another..and collapse the system...leaving ™ "real" families
without health insurance....ushering in Hillary care and voting in anyone who sponsors such an abomination
imo
It wouldn't do a lot of good to fight a battle in Cleveland that is being waged in Iraq. You must fight the enemy where you find him, then restore order everywhere else. Liberals have attacked federalism -- been doing so for years -- and they are about to win this current battle by overstepping judicial authority (also a Constitutional concept that the marriage amendment would help restore). We can talk idealism all we want, pretending that that will be enough. But we are going to lose the whole stinking war unless we engage the battles where the enemy is waging them.
That's because no one with the brain capacity enabling them to speak would make such a stupid argument.
I'm with you. But that's their strategy, Meg. They just keep bombarding us with this crap . . . and it eventually becomes acceptable because our political leaders don't have the gonads to stop it NOW!
We were borne a country of principles. We're dying ever so slowly because we've surrendered to perversion.
And anyone who wants to call me a homo-phobe . . . feel free. I suggest I've got more of a dog in this hunt than anyone.
Short and sweet and I won't answer questions about it . . .
An older brother announced he was gay a couple of years ago. After being married for over twenty years, after raising some beautiful children, after rising to the top of his career field. He'd kept it quiet for fifty+ years. But he joined a "NEW" church and was convinced he had to "come out of the closet to be true to God and himself."
My 80-ish year-old father was as healthy as an 80-ish year-old man could be when my brother made his announcement. He died nine months later.
He died nine months later.
Did I tell you my father died nine months after my brother's "Divinely Inspired" call to announce his gay-ness?
My brother was my father's favorite to talk about -- not that he loved him any more than the rest of us but my brother's career field is more high-profile than being a simple CPA or manufacturing company business owner. But my father NEVER talked of him again after my brother's announcement. NEVER! I never heard him denigrate my brother, and he was kind to my brother when he visited, but my father tried to mentally banish my brother from my his life . . . and this mental turmoil killed him.
Do I blame my brother? HELL YES I DO! He'd been quiet about it his entire life, why in the hell did he have to tell us now?
For those of you who say it's a decision for two adults to make, that it's not anyone else's business . . . I SAY YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!
And that's all I have to say about that . . .
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.