Posted on 10/23/2008 1:13:24 PM PDT by pissant
''I don't know if you saw this, but vice presidential candidate Governor Sarah Palin says that she's in favor of a Federal ban on gay marriage. Basically, she wants to change the Constitution. So, if you're wondering -- I'm sure you are -- how I feel about this, I don't like it. I don't like it. I don't agree.... And maybe it's because I'm gay that I think we should all be equal, but, um, I feel that we're all equal. And I don't know what people are scared of. You know, maybe they think that their children will be influenced. And I gotta say, I was raised by two heterosexuals, I was surrounded by heterosexuals -- just everywhere I looked: heterosexuals. And they did not influen -- I mean, I dabbled in high school, who didn't? ... People are gonna be who they're gonna be, and we need to learn to love them for who they are and let them love who they want to love.''
Talk show host Ellen Degeneres on the set of her TV program speaking about Sarah Palin's public admission on the 700 Club that she wishes to have a Federal ban on gay marriage but then immediately expressed that she wasn't going to sit in judgment of anyone. Degeneres, of course, famously married her long-time girlfriend, Portia de Rossi, earlier this year when California's Supreme Court concluded that same-sex marriages be made legal on the grounds that it is a civil rights issue. (NY Daily News)
Nothing whatever to do with “equality” here, Ellen. You are trying to make the aberrant behavior of homosexuals “equal” to the heterosexual behavior which has been considered normal since man has existed. This only makes sense to you and your ilk.
Ellen ick
Ellen has the right to her view. I don’t think she should use her show as a platform. Last time she pulled that she lost.
Marriage is a contract which spells out a collection of rights and responsibilities between the parties. Further homosexuals can still have children legal through scientific means or, in some jurisdictions, adoption.
Your arguments hold no merit when it comes to civil marriage and why a secular government shouldn't care if two men, two women or a man and a woman want to marry.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“””Marriage is much more than a contract”””
It can be and should be, but it does not
need the government to get involved
“””The homosexuals want society’s endorsement... “”””
That is exactly why the government should stay out of the marriage business,
The government does not represent society. Why should they ?
They are just some dudes that work for us.
“””And society has a real interest in regulating,
through government, maternity and paternity”””
LOL, Yep. Put them in charge of everything,
even life itself. Government knows best /sarc
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“””Children need a father and a father”””
Humans need Freedom from your governments.
Freedom is how everything happens best.
LOL, no. Those children are still conceived through sexual reproduction. Go back to biology class.
If you think the raising of children, which has traditionally been done through sanctioning the marriage of one man and one woman, is not an appropriate matter for civil society to manage, you're clueless. the fact that no-fault divorce and all the other subsequent assaults on the traditional family structure are already full blown in their effects is a point that supports my position, not yours. But I get your point, our society is so far in the gutter, why not let homos marry?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I think the only thing they couldn't justify is pedophilia, using the libertarian notion that childen cannot consent. I suppose they can say, well, no we won't push for bestiality because animals cannot give consent, but would animals have consciousness of being violated? I guess they could say it's animal cruelty, but what if the animal is not harmed? I suppose they could say, well, but the animal wouldn't enjoy it, but how would they know that?
But you're right, how can they so blithely mock conservatives' concerns about ultimately normalizing incest and polygamy.
And why do they mock religious polygamy? Would they have a problem with polygamy if it were a bunch of dudes? Or how about a whole gang of gays and bi's of both sexes? How do they logically say that will never be the next step? When they cast aside the traditional definition of marriage, where do they get the basis for the one man-one man/one woman-one woman gay marriage paradigm?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
It also has a pretty iron-clad foundation in the laws of nature, as well.
All homos have is "two people love each other."
What in the world does that matter?
Eww... sit down beside me and tell me more...
After which, Hollywood started questioning Anne Heche’s sanity.
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.