Think of it in terms of mathematical equality:
Think of it in terms of procreation:
Posted on 02/19/2011 6:56:55 PM PST by mbeaven
Is banning “gay marriage” discrimination?
Is banning “gay marriage” discrimination? No. Under the legal system prior to the legalization of such unions, anyone was free to marry someone of the opposite gender, no matter your gender, race, religion, economic status, or sexual orientation. You are free to marry someone of the opposite gender, and the law is applied equally to all people, so banning “gay marriage” is not discrimination.
As far as homosexuals being allowed to do what they desire, why not let anyone from a cookie thief to a child molester do what they want, homosexuals included? We ban certain things because in a society, culture matters — if we live in a culture of sexual perversion, we will get the consequences of that culture.
If the gays want to win their argument, they are going to have to re-tool their propaganda machine — the current line is too obvious a lie.
(Excerpt) Read more at considerandhearme.wordpress.com ...
Same sex marriage is like a square circle, intrinsically contradictory in its definition.
Only if banning perversion is discrimination. ;-)
One of the lines they used here in IN recently, when the marriage amendment passed the House, was that they were “writing hate speech into the States constitution”
Well, when you redefine the word “marriage” and “discrimination” and for that matter “banning”, then, yes, I guess it could be.
They can already get married. I don’t see how it’s a ban on gay people marrying.
“You are free to marry someone of the opposite gender, and the law is applied equally to all people....”
I think they tried that argument in LovIng and it did not work.
And when the question goes to the SCOTUS, the decision will be in the hands of Justice Kennedy.
No, so-called same sex marriage is not discrimination. Marriage, in the legal sense, is a state-licensed method of starting a new family. Historically, it gave a man some measure of certainty that children born to his wife were really his, and it was the lynchpin of inheritance customs and laws. Today, simply because women can get pregnant through artifcial means, and paternity is easy to determine by DNA testing, it is no excuse to extend the legal definition of marriage beyond one man and one woman. I’d rather see the state get out of the business of licensing marriage than see the definition of marriage extended beyond one man and one woman.
God will judge them all accordingly. Man can only keep them away from our children.
Marriage itself is too regulated by the government to the point where it’s not an official declaration of two people sharing each other’s property and leaving the other as the prime beneficiary of somebody’s property after they die. The left turned marriage into a wealth transfer program.
Perfect point.
A square is not discriminated by not being a circle, nor a circle for not being a square.
They are what they are, why should gays be any different. It is we who are being discriminated against. Not the gays
Think of it in terms of mathematical equality:
Think of it in terms of procreation:
Blog whoring is low but blog whoring same sex attraction disorder is somewhere in an altered state, even *below* low.
[different variations on same theme....now isn’t that a bit queer]
Then you should post them here.
Or is there something bad about them? Porn maybe? Bad language?
So it’s “consider and hear me, but not here, over there where I can get blog hits.”
I’m very interested in why you think that people on a conservative forum are as fixated as you are on the homosexual agenda.
Play the note you know. Indeed.
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.