Posted on 05/15/2008 6:47:29 PM PDT by newbie2008
This is why they side with the Islamists who ALSO seek to destroy our culture.
The short-sighted punks, however, don’t understand the restrictions they’d live under if Islam dominated the West.
“An adult CANNOT marry anyone he or she chooses. Close relations are prohibited by law (even for consenting adults) as are multiple marriages (bigamy).”
Sure they can. You hold your nice little private wedding ceremony, you file no official documents, you make a vow to one another. You’re married, even if no one else recognizes it but the two involved parties. Or even three involved parties.
That’s what I was getting at. Even if society did away with all official mores of marriage, I’d still go through as much. It’s about making a commitment to another person—one that really isn’t but a private agreement between two people and their God.
I own a business. If two men want to marry, the cost of providing them health benefits just went through the roof. I already can’t discriminate against hiring them on the basis of ‘gender’.
You want me to continue? They would, as married ‘couples’ compete for adoptions, since homosexuality is at least a reproductive disorder.
Married, for the purposes of the state and feds, is a powerful legal status. All conferring this right on to homosexuals would do is create another massive legal loophole for another ‘oppressed’ minority to drive a truck through.
It couldn’t have a larger impact on every taxpayer.
The latter don't actually care about gay people any more than they do any people who don't live according to their progressive precepts. That can be a real problem for gay people who really would prefer just to be left alone. They aren't being left alone. It isn't conservatives who are prodding them, outing them, blackmailing and threatening them if they don't toe the line.
The good news in this is that a change in policy isn't really going to result in mass gay marriages (and ensuing mass gay divorces). The bad news is that this is far from the end of it.
“Yes, but none of that is an impact of your rights as outlined in the constitution”
Hogwash. Homosexuality is either one of two things: disease or a bad choice. It could also be both.
In either case, we should find a cure for it, or we should keep doing what we did before, which is to socially isolate it, because it is killing a lot of innocent people.
If it is a disease, then the problem is solved, because you have the American’s with Disabilities Act, which will allow gays to have what they need to compensate for their illness.
It will be up to a court to decide on whether allowing them to marry is a measure of compensatory aid homosexuals should be granted under the act.
Allowing them to marry, and worse, granting them some sort of exclusive legal status, is inapropriate.
Cure it, control it with medication, or ban it.
We shouldn’t be passing laws like this until we know for sure what causes homosexuality.
Follow the money. In the U.S., the fight is really for spousal job benefits like health care. In Canada that is not a factor.
“Then do the same thing to every choice you’ve ever made.”
You could have fallen asleep on your keyboard and compiled a more comprehensible response.
If homosexuality is a choice, it’s a bad one that puts us all at risk, and it should be shunned. If it’s a disease, it should be cured.
Not a single major religion or philosophy considers homosexuality moral. Even the Dalai Lama says it’s not proper. Islam’s against it. Christianity, et. al. Not a single school of philosophical thought considers it normal.
There is nothing in human physiology that accommodates homosexual behavior.
Homosexual rights is an arrogance on the order of believing women should be the sole arbiter of who lives and who dies.
Again, hogwash.
They are using the 14th amendment to get rights they don’t deserve. It’s a direct infringement on my rights, because the consequence of them getting those rights mean I have to pay. They already HAVE equal protection under the law. It apparently isn’t good enough.
You have to pay how exactly? How do you have to pay that you aren’t already paying to man/woman couples who marry? They do not have equal rights under the law to marry. “Equal protection” is a moot point.
“Please, show me a purely legal spot where one man marrying another impacts your rights.”
Please, show me a purely legal spot where one man driving drunk impacts your rights.
How?
Lefties like to keep the focus narrow, on the “individual civil rights” and “what harm can it do to YOU” level.
When you “understand the times” in which we live, you understand that there is an all out assault on traditional, Western, Judeo-Christian traditional culture and values. The nuclear family is the core foundation of that culture. The left knows this and seeks in so many ways to undermine it. Gay “marriage”, feminism, welfare, promotion of sex outside of marriage - all undermine the traditional family, ON PURPOSE.
I shouldn’t have to outline it to you, and suspect you’re only asking me to try, feebly, to turn my answer around on me. Drunk driving kills. Period. It kills an astonishing percentage. Gay marriage just kills the people involved, and then only if they have some kind of communicable disease. I can see no point where it, in and of itself, infringes upon the rights of the citizenry.
Yes, I’m sure it’s all a big conspiracy. You dropped your tinfoil hat, btw.
And you’re a useful, and blind, idiot.
Do some reading, you might expand your sights beyond your immediate gratification to see what’s really going on.
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.