[eccentric]

comments invited

[anniegetyourgun]

Besides, homosexuals have full rights to marriage. There is no discrimination - they can find someone of the opposite sex to marry.

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

[MEG33]

Absurd comparison.

[truthingod]

There is no marriage covenant except between one man and one woman. Marriage was a covenant instituted by God. People who wish to live a lifestyle contrary to what God Himself ordained, should not seek to have that choice be accepted by those who see their activity as a sinful lifestyle choice.

[tdadams]

The courts told her she had relinquinshed her right to object to who raised her birth-son.

The courts were right. She did.

[FormerLib]

Skin color has nothing to do with moral behavior. Homosexuality is a moral affront to the good people of this nation and it is tyranny to use the power of government to force acceptance of it upon them.

[FormerLib]

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.

On a related topic, I would strongly encourage anyone considering putting a child up for adoption to consider working through Catholic Charities or through some other agency that will give the birth parent(s) final approval on the placement of the child.

Some friends of mine adopted a child via Catholic Charities and they (and the other potential adoptive families) were screened by the young woman with the assistance of a family placement specialist.

[whereasandsoforth]

Just because some people were concerned about mixed race marriages because of the children, and just because that was long ago, doesn't mean those concerns were or are wrong. There are a lot of things to consider about mixed-race children still to this day. "For the children" was not a bogus cause then or now.

I heard that caller you mentioned. He sounded like a very ignorant person. Homosexuality is not a race. To compare the the two is ignorant, or wishful thinking. Homosexuals of any race can practice their homosex or not as they desire. They can even stop being homosexuals. But they annot change their race. Race is a whole package. Homosexuality is practices and choices.

[Modernman]

The best solution would be to get government out of the marriage game and allow consenting adults to enter into any contracts (except contracts that are illegal on other grounds, such as suicide pacts or slavery contracts) they desire. The state will not recognize marriage of any kind.

[King Black Robe]

Gays already are foster parents in most states. It's appalling, both that it is happening, and that the public doesn't know it. Things like that have remained below the radar (thanks to an enabling media). Communities will scream about Big Brothers allowing gay mentoris and say nothing about all the foster kids. The media conveniently allows this kind of thing to go unreported. They do not want to look like bigots (I think they look like idiots).

Children is a big issue. Sure. But I think morality is just as big. Yeah, that big bad word: MORALITY! Homosexuality is not a natural function of human beings. It is a perversion of nature. I think it is idiotic to call it marriage. Some say, "But we love each other sooooo much." Well, if love is the only reason for the marriage contract, then how about friends, roommates, adult children and their parents, relatives....anyone you love and would like to help out with government benefits? Are all forms of love not equal? Is marriage only about sex? If it is, then shouldn't it be that which nature has designed us for?

The point of marriage is to structure civilization. Read the philosophers. Many of them had very interesting ideas about how to structure a society different from the one we have. All of their theories failed. Human civilization is best structured in familes. Calling any sexual hook-up a family isn't just tragic for children, it's devestating for our entire culture. It touches all of our values and all of our relationships. It redefines not only marriage, but also every other kind of love. It redefines all the simple things we take for granted. Minor example: public restrooms, dressing rooms, gym locker rooms, childhood slumber parties and same-sex friendships, etc....

[Alouette]

And that is what the push for legal homosexual marriage is all about: the children.

What children? Whose children? Two homosexuals can never procreate with each other. There is always a third party involved. This is all about homosexuals laying claim to other people's children.

[Cowboy Bob]

Does Inter-racial sex cause AIDS?

[BenLurkin]

The argument fails because it pre-supposes that morality is mutable, which of course it is not.

Racism was immoral one hundred years ago just as today. Homosexuality was immoral one hundred years ago just as it is today. We could all agree to gay marriage and it would still be immoral.

And FWIIW I personally find it very offensive to compare homosexual marriage to inter-racial mariage.

[ampat]

There is no comparison.

[Always Right]

Of all places, someone at DU actually made an intelligent point:

Where are the people who are not allowed to vote because of their sexual orientation?

Where are the people who must drink from separate water fountains and use separate rest rooms because of their sexual orientation?

Where are the people who can not own real and personal property because of their sexual orientation?

Where are the people who must sit in the back of the bus because of their sexual orientation?

Where are the people who are not permitted in restaurants, hotels, sporting venues, and other public places because of their sexual orientation?

Where are the people who are not allowed to play collegiate or professional sports because of their sexual orientation?

[drb9]

Homosexuals can already do most of what you're afraid they'll do. A single lesbian woman, for example, can foster a child, and can adopt a child. So, when you're travelling and get into an accident, such that your uninjured kids go into foster care until relatives arrive, you'll need to pin notes to their shirts saying "straight fosterers only" Or, just deal with it. Jeez.

[Bikers4Bush]

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

[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.

[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'!

[Agnes Heep]

As far as I know, interracial marriage wasn't shoved down the public's throat by an overbearing judiciary. The vast majority of people either accepted it or ignored it, primarily because no one could see any logical reason against it--the only possible objections pertained to the very small and superficial differences that are the hallmarks of race.