Posted on 05/15/2008 6:47:29 PM PDT by newbie2008
* It is significant to note that 18 months after same-sex “marriage” arrived in Canada (principally as a result of court decisions in Ontario and British Columbia), more than 95% of adult Canadian gays have chosen to ignore their new legal rig
(Excerpt) Read more at powdertracks.blogtownhall.com ...
I see what’sreally going on - gay people want to get married. Whoop-dee-frickin-doo. I personally think homosexuality is a sin, that it’s wrong. But that gives me no right whatsoever to impose that view on others. I am informed, and this is not an assault on traditional marriage. Unless they are trying to outlaw traditional marriage and the traditional family, it’s not an “assault”. Anyone who thinks that it is an assault is nothing but a knee-jerk reactionary who probably believes in the Amero-fueled “Superamerica” deals, chemtrails, and that Barack Obama wants to see a mosque on every corner.
Really, then what's the title of this article about? It's about gay people NOT wanting to get "married". But they want gay "marriage" to be CALLED the same thing as real marriage, why? There is no legal advantage to having it called something else. There is, however, the affect that the unique concept of a traditional family now shares the same label as something that isn't even close, and now the label, and the concept behind that label, means less. Hmmm.. and you said something about trying to "outlaw traditional marriage and the traditional family" - well, in California, there is a push to outlaw the use of traditional terms such as "father" and "mother" in the public schools... (link with a bunch of related links) http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07111407.html but, I guess that's just a "chemtrail" observation, not an "assault". By the way, I just met your criteria. Now, you'll find a way to still call me a nut because you don't want to face the requirement to fight back against this.
“In Canada, not here” - nope, HERE, in CALIFORNIA, “mother, father, husband, wife” are legally being stifled.
Didn’t say I wanted to use gov’t to “stamp out homos” - I just don’t want gov’t to force everyone to accept it as equivalent, and called the same thing.
California already had a “civil unions”, which gave all the legal equivalents of married couples, the court case just forced the arrangements to be called “marriage”.
You don’t seem informed enough on this topic to discuss it - have a good day until you are.
I’m just as informed as you are. There is no legal difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality - ergo, they should be treated as “just another couple” under the law, regardless of what you think the impact on traditional marriage might be. And, very simply, the efforts to stamp out phrases such as “husband” and “wife” have been feeble and laughable.
You said that there is no effort to assault traditional marriage,
then you say those efforts are feeble and laughable.
Does the intent exist or not? It does. And if only one side is fighting the culture war, that side wins.
Oh, and obviously you are NOT as informed as you need to be on this topic, as you have posted many factually inaccurate and ignorant assertions, to which I have responded with examples to the contrary.
If the only efforts are feeble and laughable, then there is no effort to speak of.
Suuuuuuuuuuuure you have. Boy, you really told me! Get it through your head - this is not an assault. Period, regardless of what you think.[/sarc]
It is obvious that religion, moral ideals, and emotion will win this argument. The Cal voters will put it in the constitution as the only restriction of rights I know to be entered into such.
I admire your tenacity, but I need a break after the various flames of "the sky is falling" since Thursday.
Best wishes and good luck in the battle.
You’re probably right. Logic has no bearing in an emotional argument like this one.
Here it is clearly so you can understand it.
In my opinion, it does. Period. It very clearly does.
First of all, this isn’t a national issues, it’s a States issue. The Constitution isn’t really the document that matters, unless you are talking about the Constitutional document of any given state.
Homosexuals are trying to take this fight to the national level in the same way the abortionistas took abortion out of the state courts hands with Roe v. Wade. They can’t win at the state levels, so they are going with the end run around the states and further twist the reading of the Constitution so that somewhere, in some emanation or penumbra, homosexuals can marry.
They drove through the 14th amendment loophole that isn’t there, but the SCOTUS says it is.
It’s because of the massive amount of damage the abortionistas did to the country and the Constitution with Roe v. Wade, and the general ineptitude of the SCOTUS, that has led us to the pressure building behind a Constitutional amendment defining marriage. It’s either that, or have GLAAD drive their milk truck through the 14th Amendment again.
Roe v. Wade has slaughtered 69 million people since 1979, all in the name of ‘reproductive rights’. Pretty Orwellian, actually.
It’s why the Constitution limits the power of the Fed Gov, because the founders realized that each state would have its own customs, and it would be best to have the states make those sorts of calls on their own. Mass hates itself enough that they’ll legalize it, and it will be fine there, since MA is irredeemably screwed up anyway.
Bottom line: Gay marriage, the act, if read into the Constitution as ‘legal’ under the 14th Amendment would just destroy further what rights are actually reserved for the states. For 9 people in black robes to say that such a thing is legal in all 50 states is the OPPOSITE of what the founders intended.
Oh, what a contrived response. We are talking about individual rights here, not whether or not you agree with the tactics of those who support this. Stay within context or don’t even bother responding.
The question, does homosexual marriage - the act itself - impinge my rights under the Constitution.
Yes.
Need it any clearer than that?
Then we will have to agree to disagree. I’ve had this conversation a number of times, and I’ve never seen any proof that it infringes on anyone’s rights.
It’s the premise of your question that’s flawed.
Your premise is that as long as gay marriage doesn’t impinge on an individuals Constitutional rights as a citizen of the US, then what harm could it be, and thus why oppose it?
It’s a false premise, because gay marriage is a state’s rights issue. Under the 10th Amendment, the Constitution is silent on the issue of whether you have the right to have a same-sex marriage. Your insisting on asking the question, however, from the context of the US Constitution.
My retort was that it’s a further distortion of the 14th Amendment, which you rejected.
You further rejected all of the arguments for why gay marriage is such a flawed idea in the first place, and that it damages the fabric of the communities that harbor gays.
You also rejected the argument that homosexuality has killed innocent people. It’s been the primary vector for AIDS, and now it’s the primary vector for USA200, which is a much more pernicious form of MRSA, and kills quicker than either AIDS or MRSA.
It’s not a matter of whether you agree with the many answers you’ve been given. The premise of your question is false, and the argument shouldn’t even be attempted in the first place. As such, there is no support for same sex marriage, no home for it in either the legal or the religious contexts of the structure and sanctity of marriage.
You could essentially arrive at a synthesized legal marriage among two people of the same sex by incorporating yourselves in a state and assigning to each other power of attorney. When you get a marriage license, this is precisely where your document is filed - the Secretary of State’s office in your State Capitol. It’s a document of incorporation, essentially.
Apologies for stating it in such blunt terms, but these aren’t opinions, they’re facts.
It’s not my view. It was a quote.
Peter LaBarbara, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, is hoping that the revelation of yet another homosexual epidemic will have an impact on the public’s perception of homosexual behavior. “I think that the media, and Hollywood, and a lot of our policy makers and certainly academia are in a world of ‘let’s pretend’ with regard to homosexual behavior and its consequences,” he told LifeSiteNews. “They don’t want to focus on the special risks that homosexual behavior, especially between men, have in the public health arena, and issues like this keep coming up.”
However, LaBarbara acknowledges that the major media will “invariably spin things in a homosexual direction.”
“We saw the identical thing happen 25 years ago with the reporting on AIDS,” he said, “but ironically the whole AIDS crisis strengthened the homosexual lobby in this country.”
From David Mixner:
“However, the data is still the data and it should raise alarm bells in the LGBT community. While answering the misconceptions created by this report, we should not remain idle in examining the data to see if the community needs to mobilize and educate our own. We know from experience that we can’t be distracted from taking care of our own while ensuring truth.
Our community organizations, both HIV- and LGBT-related, must immediately look at this data and, if necessary, act quickly to educate and protect. No one knows how to respond to a healthcare crisis like our community, and maybe we will have to once again pave the way to prevention, treatment and care through enlightened leadership. The worst scenario is for us to ignore this report because of its sloppy rhetoric and allow this infection to get a foothold in our community.
We, of all people, should not let history repeat itself - we should know better. We have the wisdom, experience and determination never to let HIV/AIDS happen again. Keep fighting the ignorance and mistakes, but prepare to heal and care for our own if needed.”
There’s at least a couple of people in the LBGT community who are at least rational enough to look at the data and see it for what it is. It is 1981, and back then they called AIDS “GRID”, and that’s because the data showed the spike in the disease within the gay male population.
Back to the original issue -
That’s not the way it works. We oppose it because we don’t understand it yet, and its a threat. It’s a threat not just to everyone, but to gay people too.
Why no telethons for homosexuality? Gays want rights? Fine, here are their responsibilities:
1. Find out what makes you gay.
2. Do what you can to figure out what to do about it.
3. Take responsibility for the fact that pedophilia and homosexualtiy are related disorders. Related how? We don’t know, but there’s a positive correlation.
4. Be at the forefront of helping the rest of us understand what it means to be gay without ramming it down our throats (attacking institutions like marriage would be an excellent start).
Until we know more about what maks gay people gay, then lets treat it like a disease and let science at it for a while. Don’t make ANY LAWS until you have some sort of clue.
Granting ANYBODY rights as an exclusive group takes rights away from all of us.
“The point is not the consequences. The point is rights, and whether the initial action in and of itself imposes on the rights of individuals. Anything else is superficial. And it is still just your point of view, no matter how many nonprofit presidents you can quote.”
You keep telling yourself that. Nobody but you is buying it.
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.